Abstract
Labour welfare is an umbrella term which includes overall well-being of the worker. Labour welfare facilities are classified by the International Labour Organization (ILO) into two types: intramural labour welfare facilities and extramural labour welfare facilities. In India, several labour legislations have been enacted to provide proper labour welfare facilities to the workers. Factories Act, 1948 is one of most important welfare-related labour legislations in which a number of labour welfare facilities are specified like washing facility, canteen facility, crèches room facility, labour welfare officer, sitting facility, and so on. In this particular study, the researcher chose descriptive research design; sample size of the study is 120 respondents, 60 respondents from each organization were selected by using simple random sampling technique. For data collection, both primary and secondary sources of data were used; as primary data collection, questionnaire method was used. Collected data were analysed in the form of tables and diagrams. Findings of the study are very interesting: some welfare facilities are good in public industry and some are good in private industry.
Introduction
Safety, welfare and health are the main indicators to improving the productivity of workers in industrial setting. A variety of welfare facilities offered by the management have a pressing impact on the health, physical and mental efficiency alertness, morale and overall productivity of the worker, which in turn produce higher productivity of the organization (Deepti, 1985). Some of the facilities and services provided by the management fulfil the expectations of workers to some extent. These facilities are canteens, seating, washing, housing, accommodation and recreation, medical care, transportation, and so on. The concept of labour welfare is comprehensive, and it includes a number of amenities which are good for the workers’ overall well-being. The philosophy of labour welfare is based on humanitarian philosophy and paternalistic approach of organizational behaviour (Satyanarayan & Reddy, 2007). Labour welfare facilities should be provided to workers irrespective of age, sex, caste, socio-cultural background, religion, economic status and educational level across various industries. In India, as a developing country, labour welfare started in a wider connotation but slowly and gradually it has become narrower. The most important objective of labour welfare scheme is to encourage a happy and prosperous employer and worker relations. Usually, labour welfare facilities provide a psychologically satisfactory work atmosphere within the organization. It is essential to provide labour welfare facilities to meet the legal requirements (Srivastava, 2002).
Necessity of Welfare Work in India
Labour health, safety and welfare activities in India are urgently needed because India is an industrially backward country, and the working conditions are not satisfactory in Indian industries. The workers are poor and illiterate. They are generally blamed for being irresponsible and lazy. Health, safety and welfare activities among workers are necessary for getting better working environment and for improving socio-economic aspects such as their living standards. In modern society, economic development of labourers plays a vital role in overall production of organization. Hence, by uplifting labour, the economic development of the nation increases markedly, which in turn increases national productivity and national income. Labour welfare is very comprehensive and embraces activities provided by employers, state, trade unions and other agencies to help workers and their families in the context of their socioeconomic life (Committee on labour Welfare Report, 1969). The scope of labour welfare however cannot offer limited facilities within or near the undertaking, nor can it be so comprehensive as to embrace the whole range of social welfare or social services. It follows therefore that all extramural and intramural welfare activities, as well as statutory and non-statutory welfare measures undertaken by the employer, the government, trade unions or voluntary organizations, fall within the scope of labour welfare. In this sense, even social security measures, education, cultural activities and industrial housing comes within the scope of labour welfare (Sharma, 1999).
In olden days, the employers suppressed the workers by paying less salary and extracting more work, that too in an unsatisfactory working environment. This suppression has produced conflict connecting the employee and the employer. To safeguard the social, economic and political interest of the workers and to protect them from poor treatment at the hands of the employer, the concept of trade unions came into existence. The trade unions were established with the aim of solving genuine problems faced by deprived workers.
Welfare Provisions Under the Factories Act, 1948
The Factories Act, 1948 came into force on 1 April 1949. This act has been amended many times. The last amendment of the act was in 1987, which included provisions with regard to health, safety and welfare of workers— provisions related to working conditions, weekly hours, daily hours, annual leave with wages, weekly holiday, employment of young persons, women, children, and so on.
Important provisions revealed in Table 1 are the key provisions of the Factories Act 1948. This act falls under protective type of labour legislation. Health, safety, welfare and other provisions protect workers from ill treatment in the factory. All abovementioned facilities are statutory and mandatory to improve standard of living, job satisfaction, productivity and morale of workers.
Categorization of Provisions under Factories Act 1948
Statutory and Non-statutory Welfare Provisions
Statutory welfare facilities consist of those provisions for welfare which come under different labour legislations, and non-statutory or voluntary welfare services do not come under any labour legislation. Non-statutory welfare facilities are purely voluntary, not regulated by any act. The central government or state government enacted certain acts or rules to maintain minimum standard of labour welfare facilities. These acts or rules fulfil the statutory obligations of labour welfare. The statutory welfare facilities are covered under the following Acts namely: Factories Act (1948), Workmen’s Compensation Act (1923), Maternity Benefits Act (1961), Employees’ State Insurance Act (1948), Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (1952), Payment of Gratuity Act (1972) and Employees’ Pension Scheme (1995) (Sharma, 1999). The non-statutory welfare facilities include housing, recreation, education/training, subsidized loans and other such facilities that are voluntary in nature.
ILO Classified Labour Welfare Facilities
Intramural and Extramural Labour Welfare Facilities Classified by ILO
Intramural Welfare Facilities
These welfare amenities are those provided within the premises of the establishment, that is, inside of the organization.
Extramural Welfare Facilities
These are welfare amenities provided outside the establishment, that is, outside of the organization.
Review of Literature
Shobha, Mishra & Manju Bhagat, in their study entitled ‘Principles for Successful Implementation of Labour Welfare Activities’, stated that we can reduce the absenteeism in Indian industries by providing the good labour welfare facilities (both statutory and non-statutory) like canteen facilities, housing facility, health and family care facility, security, recreational facility, educational and training facility, first aid facility and other statutory and non-statutory labour welfare facilities to the worker within and outside the organization (Mishra, 1997).
Research Methodology
It is a comparative study of labour welfare facilities in public and private industries in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. Two industries chosen by the researcher are, one IFFCO, Aonla, Bareilly and another India Wood Product Pvt. Ltd (IWP), Bareilly. Researcher collected information from these two organizations and compared welfare facilities in both organizations. While IFFCO is a public organization, IWP is a private one. Researcher has chosen descriptive research design and described findings of the study. Being a sampling design, researcher has chosen simple random sampling, and sample size has been chosen by using systematic procedure of sampling design:
The universe of this study is all working employees in one public and one private industry, that is, IFFCO, Aonla, Bareilly (public industry) and IWP, Bareilly (private industry). The sample size from both organizations is 120 respondents by using lottery method without replacement as simple random sampling. Required data for this study was collected by the researcher through both primary and secondary sources. Researcher collected primary information through questionnaire and secondary data from different sources like books, journals, magazines, e-books, theses, newspaper, organization year book, e-resources, internet, and so on. For data analysis, the researcher used Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software and Microsoft Excel. The analysed data was then presented in the form of frequency table.
Objective of the Study
To compare the labour welfare facilities between public and private industries provided by the IFFCO, Aonla and IWP Pvt. Ltd, Bareilly.
Hypothesis of the Study
There is a significant difference in the labour welfare facilities between public (such as IFFCO) and private industries (such as IWP).
Data Analysis and Findings
Table 4 exhibits different welfare facilities provided by the both private (IWP) and public (IFFCO) industries in Bareilly. A total of 40.0 per cent respondents rated they have very good, 41.7 per cent rated good and 18.3 per cent respondents rated average rest room facility in IFFCO, while 60 per cent respondents rated they have very good, 35.0 per cent rated good, 3.3 per cent rated average and 1.7 per cent rated poor rest room facility in IWP. A total of 46.7 per cent respondents rated they have very good, 40.0 per cent rated good and 13.3 per cent of the respondents rated average drinking water facility in IFFCO. On other hand, 56.7 per cent respondents rated they have very good, 38.3 per cent rated good and 5.0 per cent rated average drinking water facility in IWP. A total of 18.3 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 60.0 per cent rated good and 21.7 per cent respondents rated average canteen facility in IFFCO, while 40.0 per cent of the respondents rated very good, 45.0 per cent rated good, 13.3 per cent rated average and 1.7 per cent rated poor canteen facility in IWP. A total of 31.7 per cent respondents rated they have very good, 48.3 per cent rated good and 20.0 per cent of the respondents rated average medical and first aid facility in IFFCO. On other hand, 81.7 per cent of the respondents have very good and 18.3 per cent have good medical and first aid box facility in IWP. A total of 28.3 per cent respondents rated they have very good, 41.7 per cent rated good and 30.0 per cent rated average washing facility in IFFCO, while 23.3 per cent rated very good, 68.3 per cent rated good and 8.3 per cent rated average washing facility in IWP. A total of 16.7 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 48.3 per cent rated good and 35.0 per cent rated average sitting facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 35.0 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 53.3 per cent rated good and 11.7 per cent rated average sitting facility in IWP. A total of 18.3 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 31.7 per cent rated good and 50.0 per cent rated average latrine and urinal facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 36.7 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 23.3 per cent rated good, 36.7 per cent rated average and 3.3 per cent rated poor latrine and urinal facility in IWP. A total of 5.0 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 45.0 per cent rated good, 45.0 per cent rated average and 5.0 per cent rated poor transportation facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 1.7 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 5.0 per cent rated good, 5.0 per cent respondents rated average, 35.0 per cent rated poor and 53.3 per cent respondents rated very poor transportation facility in IWP. A total of 23.3 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 36.7 per cent rated good, 35.0 per cent rated average, 3.3 per cent rated poor and 1.7 per cent rated very poor housing facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 3.3 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 3.3 percent rated good, 5.0 per cent rated average, 68.3 per cent rated poor and 20.0 per cent rated very poor housing facility in IWP. A total of 15.0 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 35.0 per cent rated good, 46.7 per cent rated average, 1.7 per cent respondents rated poor and 1.7 per cent respondents rated very poor educational facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 1.7 per cent of the respondents rated they have average, 46.7 per cent rated poor and 51.7 per cent rated very poor education facility in IWP. A total of 15.0 per cent of the respondents rated they have very good, 31.7 per cent rated good, 50.0 per cent rated average, 1.7 per cent respondents rated poor and 1.7 per cent rated very poor recreational facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 3.3 per cent of the respondents rated average, 28.3 rated poor and 68.3 per cent rated very poor recreational facility in IWP. 1.7 per cent of the respondents rated they have good, 31.7 per cent rated average, 55.0 per cent respondents rated poor and 11.7 per cent of the respondents rated very poor library facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 50.0 per cent of the respondents rated they have poor and 50.0 per cent rated very poor library facility in IWP. A total of 18.3 per cent of the respondents rated average, 50.0 per cent rated poor and 31.7 per cent rated very poor gymnasium facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 36.7 per cent of the respondents rated they have average, 6.7 per cent rated they have poor and 56.7 per cent rated very poor gymnasium facility in IWP. 1.7 per cent of the respondents rated good, 41.7 per cent rated average, 38.3 per cent rated poor and 18.3 percent rated very poor cultural activity in IFFCO. On the other hand, 41.7 per cent of the respondents rated they have average, 36.7 per cent rated poor and 21.7 per cent rated very poor cultural activity in IWP. A total of 1.7 per cent of the respondent rated good, 45.0 per cent rated average, 35.0 per cent rated poor and 18.3 per cent rated very poor training facility in IFFCO. On the other hand, 3.3 per cent rated good and 20.0 per cent respondents rated average, 60.0 per cent rated poor and 16.7 per cent respondents rated very poor training facility in IWP.
Data Analysis
Hypothesis Testing
Table 5 reveals that there is no significant relationship between rest room facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.183 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.183 and p > 0.05). There is no significant relationship between drinking water facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.414 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.414 and p > 0.05). There is no significant relationship between canteen facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.073 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.073 and p > 0.05).
Table 6 reveals that there is no significant relationship between medical and first aid facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.500 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.500 and p > 0.05). That there is no significant relationship between washing facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.572 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.572 and p > 0.05). That there is not significant relationship between sitting facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.310 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.310 and p > 0.05).
Table 7 shows that there is no significant relationship between latrine and urinal facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.397 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.397 and p > 0.05). It also shows that there is no significant relationship between housing facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.968 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.968 and p > 0.05).
Hypothesis Testing (Correlation)
Table 8 exhibits that there is no significant relationship between education facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.100 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.100 and p > 0.05). There is no significant relationship between recreational facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.977 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.977 and p > 0.05). Table 8 reveals that there is no significant relationship between library facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.253 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.253 and p > 0.05).
Table 9 shows that there a significant relationship between gymnasium facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.002 is less than 0.05 ( p = 0.002 and p < 0.05). There is no significant relationship between cultural programme facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.093 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.093 and p > 0.05). The table also shows that there is no significant relationship between rest room facility in IFFCO and IWP because the value of p = 0.781 is greater than 0.05 ( p = 0.781 and p > 0.05).
Hypothesis Testing (Correlation)
Hypothesis Testing (Correlation)
Hypothesis Testing (Correlation)
Hypothesis Testing (Correlation)
Findings of the Study
As mentioned in Table 4, responses of respondents regarding different welfare facilities provided to the employees in public (IFFCO) and private (IWP) industries differ. Some welfare facilities are better in IFFCO and some welfare facilities in IWO. Canteen facility, latrine and urinal facility, recreational facility, library facility, gymnasium facility, cultural activity and training facility are better in IFFCO in comparison to IWP. On the other hand, rest room facility, drinking water facility, medical and first aid facility, washing facility, seating facility, transportation facility, housing facility and educational facility are better in IWP in comparison to IFFCO.
Suggestions
There should be good and well-maintained canteen facility in both organizations, as is the case in IFFCO.
In IFFCO, there should be very good first aid facility which is not as good in comparison with IWP.
Seating facilities are not proper. In both public and private organizations, it should be proper and well maintained.
Latrine and urinal facility should be satisfactory in both organizations.
Educational facility for children is very poor. It needs to be improved in both organizations, especially in IWP.
There should be a proper library and newspaper facility in both organizations.
In both organizations, there should be a proper training facility to train the employees for anything introduced new in the organization.
Satisfaction level of the employees regarding welfare measures should be improved in both organizations.
Industrial relations are very good, peaceful and harmonious in both organizations. It should be maintained.
Conclusion
Labour welfare facilities play an important role in any organization. Employee welfare facilities are of concern to human resource management department, and welfare facilities are managed by HR Manager, Labour welfare officer, HR Officer, and so on. If the employees are getting adequate welfare facilities, then their job satisfaction is high, and with high job satisfaction, their productivity is also affected positively. Labour welfare aims at improving the total welfare of the workers which includes good working conditions, good industrial relations, proper enforcement of labour legislations and launching of welfare and safety schemes for employees and their families. The Labour department implements several legislations relating to women employees with the purpose of providing not only financial benefits to the employees like minimum wages, overtime, bonus, and so on, but also to ensure their health and safety and security during the course of employment. In this study, the researcher compared welfare facilities between private and public industries. On the basis of the above discussion, it is very clear that some welfare facilities are good in public organizations and some are good in private organizations. Labour welfare facilities always play a positive role in any industry to boost the morale of workers, to increase productivity of employees and to increase job satisfaction of employees.