Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1997, publiée 86ème session CIT (1998)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Koweït (Ratification: 1968)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments. It has noted with interest the establishment, by Ministerial Order No. 114 of 1996, of a committee to study labour standards and Conventions, which shall, inter alia, study and propose labour standards in the light of international labour Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference.

1. Article 25 of the Convention. In its earlier comments the Committee noted the Government's statement that there does not exist any form of forced or compulsory labour in the country. It noted that the Constitution prohibits forced labour (article 42), that the labour legislation is based on the principle of the agreement of the parties and that Law No. 38 of 1964 respecting employment in the private sector does not deal with forced labour.

The Committee has noted the adoption of Ministerial Order No. 105 of 1994, which prohibits private sector employers from utilizing any method to force employees to work or undertake tasks which fall outside their contract duties (section 1, clause 1). The Government refers in its latest report received in November 1996 to section 49 of Act No. 31 of 1970 to amend certain provisions of Act No. 16 of 1960, which prohibits public officials or employees to force a worker to perform a job for the State or for a public body and provides for punishment of imprisonment or a fine in case of violation of that prohibition. The Committee has also noted the Government's indication in its latest report that section 173 of the Penal Code provides for the imposition of penalties on anyone who threatens another person physically or with damage to his reputation or property with a view to forcing the victim to do something or to refrain from doing something.

While noting these indications, the Committee wishes to point out once again that the above-mentioned provisions do not appear to be sufficient to give effect to this Article of the Convention which stipulates that "the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence", and that "it shall be an obligation on any Member ratifying this Convention to ensure that the penalties imposed by law are really adequate and strictly enforced".

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures (e.g. through the committee to study labour standards and Conventions referred to above) in order to give full effect to this Article of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

2. In its earlier comments the Committee noted Ordinance No. 617 of 1992 on domestic service agencies and the model contract attached to the Ordinance. It noted that domestic workers and similar categories are excluded from the scope of Law No. 38 of 1964 respecting employment in the private sector. The Committee requested the Government to indicate how persons in domestic service are protected and in particular under what conditions they can leave their employment and to what courts they may have recourse if necessary.

The Committee has noted the Government's indications in its report of 1993 concerning the protection of domestic workers in the course of their recruitment by the domestic service agencies. It has noted that, in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 40 of 1992, such agencies must be licensed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and a special inspectorate shall be set up to supervise their operations. The Government has also indicated that the new draft Labour Code covers this category of workers.

However, in the absence of the indications concerning the conditions under which domestic servants can leave their employment and concerning their possibilities to have recourse to courts if necessary, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government for such information. It hopes that the new Labour Code will provide adequate protection for these workers as regards their freedom to terminate employment, and asks the Government to supply a copy of the new Code as soon as it is adopted.

3. In its earlier comments the Committee asked the Government to supply details regarding the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation submitted by a person wishing to resign from the army in accordance with the requirements laid down by Law No. 32 of 1967 (sections 98, 99, 104 and 105). The Committee noted that it is the obligation of the person seeking to resign to continue service in the armed forces until the resignation is accepted, which means that the service is not automatically terminated upon delivery of a resignation which otherwise complies with the requirements of sections 104 and 105. It noted that neither section 104 nor 105 establishes the criterion used for deciding whether a resignation presented in compliance with the conditions laid down in these provisions will or will not be accepted.

With reference to paragraphs 33 and 72 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee wishes to point out once again that career members of the armed forces, who have voluntarily engaged in the armed forces, should not be deprived of the right to leave the service in peacetime within a reasonable period, either at specified intervals, or with previous notice. While noting the Government's statement in its 1993 report that it is possible for all members of the armed forces to resign from the army, subject to some limited exceptional cases, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate clearly the criteria applied in accepting or rejecting a resignation presented in conformity with sections 104 and 105 of the above-mentioned law, as well as the number of cases in which such resignations were refused.