Extension of Occupational Safety and Health Measures for the Protection of Beedi Workers in India

Abstract

Beedi workers in India, working in unorganized pockets with poor working conditions, suffer severe health impacts due to long-term exposure to the chemicals involved in beedi-making. Beedi rollers are piece-rated workers who undertake work from home. These workers lack occupational safety and protective mechanisms at home, and establishing accountability of the employers towards these workmen has also been challenging. Legislations like the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act, 1966 (BCWA), and the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1971 (BWWFA), have addressed various aspects of beedi workers’ working conditions; however, they have failed to extend the protections relating to occupational health and safety to beedi workers working at home instead of industrial premises. The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code (OSHWC) of 2020, which is proposed to be implemented in India, also fails to address this issue. As laws dealing with the health and safety of beedi workers only apply to “establishments,” the beedi manufacturing should be taken out of homes (through legislative amendment) to industrial premises, by declaring beedi-making as a hazardous process. Legislative amendments are needed to avoid engaging children in beedi rolling. Livelihood diversification needs to be prioritized to provide alternative employment to beedi workers.

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco consumption leads to around eight billion annual deaths globally[1] and an estimated 1.3 million deaths in India,[2] making it one of the leading preventable public health concerns of the country. India is currently the third largest tobacco-producing and the second largest tobacco-consuming nation, wherein 13% of all deaths can be associated with tobacco use.[2] Beedi is an indigenously produced smoking tobacco product made by rolling tobacco flakes into dried tendu leaves secured by a thread.[3] Around 7.7% of Indian adults (GATS,3) (constituting about 71.8 million people) smoke beedis in the country, presenting a relatively large market for its demand.[4] Resultantly, between “500 billion and one trillion” beedis are produced in India every year,[5] and an estimated seven to eight million workers may be involved as beedi workers across the country in different roles, including collecting leaves, rolling beedis, or trading.[6] However, approximately only 4.9 to 5 million people are registered as beedi workers in India,[3,7] and about 2.2 million workers of the unorganized sector are tribal involved in tendu leaves plucking.[8] The majority of these workers are women (90-95%), assisted by children[7] who are primarily engaged in beedi rolling and work from home as part of the unorganized sector.[6,8] Despite a huge market, beedi workers are still one of the most marginalized and poor sections of our society,[6] who work on a piece-rate basis and are only paid based on the delivered final product, irrespective of the working hours.

A high number of literature documents the severe health impact faced by beedi workers, including respiratory, neurological, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular disorders. Women in particular, who are the primary beedi workers in India, face issues inter alia like cervical cancer, decreased fertility, increased risk of anemia, or miscarriage.[3,9] Evidence also indicates that the children of beedi workers face low birth weight and respiratory or gastrointestinal problems.[9] Beedi rollers in particular, who work from home, face poor working conditions and lack safety gear (like masks, gloves, etc.), leading to long-term exposure to the chemicals.[3,6]

The economic and health-related challenges of these workers are further amplified due to the unorganized nature of this work sector, where an employer may escape liability and accountability towards these workers by using the gray areas of law. Despite the Indian courts declaring beedi workers as “workman” as per the country’s labor legislations,[10] these workers often do not find themselves eligible for occupational health and safety under the law. This article highlights the gaps in the existing legislative frameworks regulating the beedi workers, which fail to apply the measures of occupational health, safety, and proper working conditions to beedi rollers working from private dwellings instead of an establishment or industry premises. Further, this article identifies the specific legislative lacunae and presents the reforms needed in law and other welfare measures to protect the health and well-being of beedi rollers and their families.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK GOVERNING BEEDI WORKERS IN INDIA

Beedi workers, who are primarily piece-rated workers, typically are not required to work in the industrial premises. They are supplied with raw materials, such as tendu leaves and tobacco, by the employer, either directly or through the contractor, and the workers are paid upon supply of completed pieces of beedis as per the decided piece-rate. The primary legislation regulating working conditions of beedi workers in India is the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (BCWA), wherein “employee” includes those working in the factory premises as well as “home workers” who are given raw materials for making beedi or cigars at home.[11] Additionally, the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Act 1976 (BWWFA) provides for establishing a welfare fund for beedi workers to incur expenses towards their education, family welfare, housing, nutrition, etc., and extends to home workers as well.[12] The Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act 1976 (BWWCA) provides for the levy of cess/excise duty on manufactured beedis, and the amount collected will go towards the Beedi Workers Welfare Fund. However, despite these sector-specific legislations and also coverage under other labor statutes, such as the Minimum Wages Act 1948, Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 (CALA), etc., the conditions of workers in the beedi industries continue to be deplorable.

CHALLENGES OF “PRIVATE DWELLINGS” AND LIMITED LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER

It is not contested that home workers in the beedi industry are considered employees. This has been reiterated through various judicial decisions as well. For example, the Supreme Court has expressly held that home workers are “employees,” whether employed directly or through a contractor, thereby making provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act and corresponding schemes applicable to them.[13] Similarly, there are other such judicial decisions extending social security benefits to home workers in the beedi industries. However, challenges of home workers in the beedi industry extend beyond these benefits as well.

The definition of “industrial premises” specifically excludes “private dwelling house,” which is the place of residence of persons involved in making beedi or cigars.[14] This exclusion of private dwelling houses consequently results in several other provisions under the Act not being applied to those who are home workers. While provisions such as cleanliness,[15] ventilation,[16] overcrowding,[17] drinking water,[18] latrines and urinals,[19] washing facilities,[20] crèche,[21] which are applicable to industrial premises may not be as pertinent for home workers, there are other provisions which need attention. Provisions such as working hours,[22] wages for overtime work,[23] interval for rest,[24] spread-over,[25] which are restricted to industrial premises only and not extended to home workers, are a matter of concern. Considering that beedi workers are piece-rated employees, their objective is to roll out as many beedis/cigars as possible, which may take not only longer working hours but also possibly more family members, such as children of the house, who are not employed by the employer and neither should be, as per the law. While in industrial premises, the total working hours, including periods of rest, shall be spread over not more than ten and a half hours in a day; home workers or those working from their private dwelling houses have no such restriction and end up working for a longer duration than their counterparts in the factories. Thus, along with long hours of work for rolling beedis, women also have to fulfill their domestic responsibilities, which is also time and energy-consuming. Additionally, the BCWA expressly prohibits the employment of children only in the industrial premises,[26] thereby creating a loophole for engaging children in assisting adult home workers in rolling beedis. Chapter IV of the Factories Act 1948, which deals with safety provisions, is also applicable only to industrial premises.[27] This essentially means that safety precautions, such as protective gear for the eyes, or protection against inhaling harmful particles or dust, are not applicable to beedi workers working from private dwelling houses. Additionally, “safety officers”[28] who are employed for industrial premises involving health hazards are not applicable to home workers of the beedi industry. These pertinent provisions of law, being restricted in their application only to industrial premises, evidently diminish the employer’s liability as well as the liability of the owner/occupier of such factories. Further, the BCWA 1966 expressly states that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (IDA), which give employees the right to raise an industrial dispute against the employer, are also applicable only to industrial premises.

These glaring lacunae in the legislation could have been addressed in the new Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2020 (OSHWC), which subsumes 13 central labor legislations, including the BCWA 1966. However, the OSHWC Code, under its definition of “industrial premises,” retains the exclusion of “private dwelling houses.”[29,30] Interestingly, the OSHWC Code inserts a provision wherein the employer, on behalf of employees, has to seek permission from the State government for carrying out wetting or cutting of beedi or tobacco leaves outside the industrial premises.[31] It further prohibits employers from carrying out any manufacturing process related to the making of beedis outside of industrial premises.[32] However, the proviso to this section creates an exception for those who are given raw materials to make beedis at home. This essentially defeats the purpose of the provision and does not alleviate the home workers’ distressing condition. It may also be noted that while the cigarette manufacturing industry[33] has been expressly added to the list of “hazardous processes,” beedi manufacturing continues to be outside the purview of hazardous processes even under the OSHWC.

While it cannot be guaranteed that once beedi-making or the home-based work of the industry is formalized and shifted to industrial premises, the employer will ensure all compliance; nonetheless, it can, to some extent, minimize the violations that happen. Studies[34] suggest that inspections are primarily carried out in industrial premises rather than home-based work sites. The other fallout of this may also be that women workers may not want to leave the convenience and duties of their homes and go to industrial premises and work, thereby affecting their employment. In that case, therefore, safety and compliance of the home-based work sites should be ensured by involving inspections by the community heads, such as village-level officers.

NEED FOR REFORMS TO EXTEND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY TO BEEDI WORKERS

Over time, many efforts have been made to improve the conditions of beedi workers in India through enactments like BCWA, BWWFA, BWWCA, and minimum wage measures; however, the protections have still remained concerningly low. In a challenging development, the 2016 amendment to the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986 substituted the Act’s list of hazardous processes with the list provided in the Factories Act, 1948 (FA), which resultantly removed any part of beedi-making as a hazardous process.[35] The OSHWC that purports to subsume FA also keeps beedi-making outside the purview of hazardous processes. Children below the age of 14 years form approximately 13% of the family members involved in beedi rolling in West Bengal; unofficial figures indicate that engagement of children may be somewhere between 25% and 40%.[5] Despite clear evidence that children assist their parents in rolling beedis at home,[7] the law now does not prohibit the engagement of children in beedi rolling as long as it takes place at a private dwelling. This change is particularly problematic because children can now be forced to assist parents just to earn some more money; consequently, violating their right to education, and perhaps making them a part of a vicious circle of poverty, lack of education and skill, and health hazards. Further, the interpretation of “dangerous operations” mentioned in section 77 of OSHWC does not apply to private dwellings, exempting the exposure of beedi manufacturers to health risks outside the remedial measures that may apply to enterprises undertaking dangerous operations.

It is pertinent that beedi-making be declared as a hazardous process, not simply in the context of child labor but also for adults. As hazardous processes can only be undertaken at “establishments,” the change can take beedi rolling away from homes and to the factory premises, ensuring that all beedi workers receive measures of protection relating to occupational health, safety, and proper working conditions, and in reciprocation, the employer can be liable and accountable towards all workmen (beedi workers), equally. Thus, OSHWC needs to incorporate the above change before it is implemented.

Alternatively, the provisions in BCWA, FA, IDA, and OSHWC (which will subsume BCWA and FA) need to undergo amendments to extend the employers’ liability in every aspect of occupational safety, health, and collective bargaining mechanisms to home workers of the beedi industries. This alternative, though, will need regular enforcement drives to ensure that home workers have safety gear, there is no engagement of children in beedi-making, and that safety officers undertake regular visits to private dwellings, without which the protections for home workers may not be desirably achieved.

A 2015 study[34] of Madhya Pradesh on the implementation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, in the beedi-making industry in the state indicates that only half of the workers are aware of the inspection authorities that check compliance with the Act. The report suggests that around 73.97% of enterprises maintained inspection records. However, the reality of inspection is that they are only limited to urban areas, and the rural units remain unattended. Further, as the beedi industry works in unorganized pockets, it becomes difficult for it to be traced by the enforcement agencies to seek compliance.[34] As part of the enforcement and implementation mechanisms, the labor administration needs to ensure a wider coverage, consistency, and higher awareness with respect to the inspection mechanisms of minimum wage and working conditions, failing which the benefits are taken by the middlemen, leading to labor exploitation.

Despite the extension of the OSH Code to homes of beedi rollers or shifting the bidi manufacturing process to industrial premises, through legislative reforms in labor legislations in India, some challenges of this hydra-headed problem still remain open for addressing. Arguably, for example, the married women who may form up to 90% of this sector’s workforce, primarily exercise the flexibility of managing a balance between their household chores, motherly duties, and beedi rolling.[36] Women choose to work from home despite the health risks associated with the work because of their de facto immobility that confines them to their homes due to social and familial structures. Thus, any form of legislative reform will have a primary impact on women and their predominant source of income. Hence, along with legislative reforms, their interests need to be secured. Data suggests that 82% of the beedi rollers were unwilling to give up this work due to the absence of alternative livelihood mechanisms.[5] Studies indicate an urgent need for interventions to provide alternative livelihood opportunities for women. The younger workers are particularly more open to taking up other jobs. Hence, vocational training, alternative avenues for absorption of labor, and awareness for taking up other work may help address this challenge.[36]

CONCLUSION

A major challenge is that despite high production rates and more than 300 brands of beedis being available in the country, no brand has a national market share of more than 5%.[4] While the economic benefits of the industry have not helped in uplifting the economic positions of the beedi workers in India, the low taxes on beedis have also not contributed financially to the state exchequer. Further, the new tax regime under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) places around 98% of the beedi manufacturing units out of the tax bracket,[4] giving benefits to the contractor/middlemen, instead of the unorganized workers. Collections and rates of taxation on beedis are often also marred by the political influence or shielding of the beedi manufacturing industries.[37] With India’s target to reduce tobacco prevalence in the country down by 30% by 2025,[38] it is essential that future research and policy measures, towards a higher rate of taxation and wider tax liability, are undertaken, to utilize their proceeds towards the economic upliftment and protection of the health of beedi workers.

In order for India to comply with its international obligation under the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Article 17: provisions of support for economically viable alternative activities; and Article 18: protection of the environment and the health of the persons),[39] and to attain the 30% reduction in prevalence, the best opportunity would be to diversify livelihood, promote alternate crops, and control tobacco industry strategies that lure people into tobacco farming and manufacturing. Additionally, targeted health-related interventions, particularly for women or children who may have or will see long-term exposure to beedis and tobacco, need to be undertaken by the state.[8] Measures, including the identification and mapping of beedi home workers, followed by the implementation of sustainable welfare or rehabilitative measures with a continuous monitoring and evaluation mechanism, also need to be undertaken by the respective governments to provide better economic and working conditions to these workers. All of these measures must be in addition to the legislative amendments, robust law enforcement mechanisms, and a strong political will.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

Nil.