Working paper on coverage of sectors and selection of centres for new CPI (IW) Series

Agenda paper for the First TAC Group meeting for Base updation of CPI (IW)

M/O LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT

LABOUR BUREAU

CHANDIGARH

2

“The consumer price index (CPI) is designed primarily to measure the changes over time in the general level of prices of goods and services that a reference population acquires, uses or pays for ”…………….. The Preamble ILO resolution concerning CPI.

1. Introduction1.1 The Consumer Price Index numbers for Industrial Workers [CPI (IW)] in

India are being compiled and disseminated by the Labour Bureau since its inception on a monthly basis. The CPI numbers for industrial workers measure a change in the retail prices of fixed basket of goods and services being consumed by an average working class family. Amongst all the available population segment specific CPI series compiled at the National level, the CPI series for industrial worker is one of the important measure at the point of consumption and the most widely followed series as wages / salary of industrial workers as also of all salaried employees in public and private sectors, in services and trade etc., are indexed to the all India/centre specific series.

:

1.2 Basic Framework

1.3

: There are two essential constituents of CPI (IW) namely; weighting diagram and retail prices. The weighting diagram is built up at the start of the series on the basis of Family Living Survey/Working Class Family Income & Expenditure Surveys (WCFI&ES) to determine the consumption pattern among the defined population group to which the index relates - Industrial workers in the instant case. The weighting diagram along with the prices of the item basket constitutes the basic framework on which the index series is compiled periodically. Need for Base Updation

: The consumption pattern of the working class population undergoes change over a period of time & therefore, it becomes necessary that the consumption basket is updated from time to time to account for these changes and to maintain the representative character of the index. The need for frequent revision of base (preferably in 5 years but not later than 10 years) on account of fast changing consumption pattern of the target group has been recommended by ILO, National Statistical Commission, National Commission on Labour and also Technical Advisory Committee on Statistics of Prices and Cost of Living. Therefore to update the base of CPI (IW) numbers, the first thing is the conduct of Family Living Survey/Working Class Family Income & Expenditure Survey (WCFI&ES) for computation of weighting system for the index series.

3

1.4 Historical Background

1.5

: The Labour Bureau launched family living survey during 1958-59 in 50 important industrial centres all over the country on uniform and scientific lines laid down by the Technical Advisory Committee on Cost of Living Index Numbers. Based on the results of the survey and utilizing the retail prices regularly collected from the selected markets, the CPI (IW) on base 1960, for each of the 50 centres and all India had been compiled and published by the Labour Bureau. With the passage of time, to cater to the changing pattern of consumption of working class, the Income & Expenditure Survey in 70 industrially important centres was conducted during 1981-82 in accordance with the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee on Statistics of Prices and Cost of Living (TAC on SPCL) set up by the Government and the guidelines laid down by ILO for the 1982 series. A fresh Family Income & Expenditure Survey was undertaken at 78 centres in 1999-2000 on the basis of which CPI (IW) 2001 = 100 series was prepared and released. Scope and Coverage

1.6 While there has been a significant increase in the number of centres from 50 on base 1960 = 100 to 70 on base 1982 = 100 and 78 in the current series of 2001 = 100, there has also been an enhanced coverage of working class

: For the scope of CPI, the reference/target population is industrial worker. In the name of industrial workers only factory workers were covered in the 1944 & 1949 series. The scope of industrial workers was further extended to by including plantation and mining workers with effect from 1960 series. Taking cognizance of the recommendations of Rath committee on consumer price index numbers - 1978, the scope and coverage under the 1981-82 and 1999-2000 survey was enlarged with the inclusion of manual workers in four more sectors viz. Railways, Public Motor transport undertakings, Electricity Generating & Distributing Establishments and Ports & Docks; in addition to those three sectors, mentioned ante, covered in the 1960 series. Therefore for the current series, the concept of industrial workers encompasses the following seven sectors i.e. Factories, Mines, Plantations, Railways, Public Motor Transport Undertakings, Electricity Generating & Distributing Establishments and Port & Docks under the relevant legislation viz. The Factories Act 1948, The Mines Act 1952, The Plantation Labour Act 1951, The Indian Railways Act 1890, The Motor Transport Workers Act 1961, The Indian Electricity Act 1910, The Dock Workers Act (Regulation of Employment) Act 1948 and The Indian Dock Labourers Act 1934.

4

families surveyed under the above three series which were 23400, 34776 and 41040 respectively.

Details of various series of CPI (IW) Sl. No.

Base Year

Sectors covered Coverage of

Centres 1. 1944=100 FACTORY SECTOR

24

2. 1949=100 FACTORY SECTOR

27

3. 1960=100 FACTORY, MINING & PLANTATION SECTORS

50

4. 1982=100 FACTORY, MINING, PLANTATION , ELECTRICITY GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION, RAILWAYS, PUBLIC MOTOR TRANSPORT AND PORTS & DOCKS SECTORS

70 + 6 additional centres

5. 2001=100 …………..DO…………………

78

2 The Index Review Committee (IRC) & Standing Tripartite Committee (STC)

:

2.1 The Government constituted an Index Review Committee on 17th

November 2006 under the chairmanship of Prof. G. K. Chadha to review the Consumer Price Index numbers for Industrial Workers. The committee has submitted its Report to the Ministry in 2009. The IRC has made several recommendations in its report for effecting overall improvements in the new series of CPI-IW. The Ministry of Labour & Employment has accepted all the recommendations made in the IRC, accordingly Labour Bureau is committed to implement the recommendations of IRC in letter and spirit.

5

2.2 The IRC has made several recommendations covering all the aspects of CPI (IW) such as Price Collection Machinery, Working Class Family Income & Expenditure Survey, Conduct of Repeat House Rent Survey and Index Compilation etc. Some of the major recommendations of IRC are:

1. Base year of the new series of CPI (IW) should not go beyond 10

years. 2. Consultation with various stakeholders should be there from very

beginning till the end. 3. Standing Tripartite Committee of all the stakeholders like Trade

Unions’, Employers Organizations’, Central/State Government Departments, Women’s Organizations and representatives from the newly emerging sectors need to be constituted.

4. Coverage of sectors need to be extended beyond existing seven sectors, by adding at least one or two more sectors such as Handloom & Construction sectors.

5. Number of centers to be covered in the next WCFI&ES should be reviewed and new upcoming centers may be added in the next survey.

2.3 Pursuant to one of the crucial IRC recommendation on consultation with

Index users, the M/O Labour & Employment vide its order no. Y-12011/5/2010-ESA (LB) dated 12th

Chairman Principal Labour & Employment Advisor, M/O Labour & Employment

Member

January 2011 has constituted a Standing Tripartite Committee to advise on issues pertaining to base updation exercise with the following composition and terms of reference:

i. Two members representing Central Trade Unions’ ii. Two members representing Employers’ Organizations

iii. Independent member (one)/Academic Representative (one) iv. Representative of Women’s Organization v. State representatives (Three members)

vi. Central Government Representatives (Three members)

6

vii. M/O Labour & Employment (Two members)

Terms of Reference:

i. To examine the various aspects of the base year revision of CPI (IW) including the selection of centers, sample size, sampling design, methodology for deriving the weighting diagram and linking factor;

ii. Examine the method of price collection procedures and machinery of price collection;

iii. Examine the centre specific weighting diagrams for all the centres, selection of base year, compilation of base year prices, trial indices and

iv. Consider any other relevant issue(s)/matter as may be necessary

2.4 The first meeting of Standing Tripartite Committee on coverage of sectors and selection of centers in the new CPI (IW) series was held in Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi on 2nd

July 2013. The issue of expansion of coverage of sectors to Handloom & Construction sectors in accordance with the IRC recommendations, as noted above, was also discussed. The minutes of the meeting is enclosed herewith (Annexure X).

3 Agenda for consideration

: The twofold agenda for first meeting of TAC Group on SPCL is as follows;

a. To finalize the coverage of sectors for the new CPI (IW) series b. To finalize the selection of centers for the new CPI (IW) series

The recommendations made by the Index Review Committee, deliberations held in the first STC meeting & consultation report with the appropriate interfaces have been duly considered while analyzing the aforementioned agenda items for having a comprehensive view on the issues.

4

Coverage of Sectors:

4.1 As indicated in the introduction, the target population for the existing CPI (IW) series is working class families of industrial workers engaged in seven sectors, namely Factories, Mines, Plantations, Railways, Public Motor

7

Transport Undertakings, Electricity Generating & Distributing Establishments and Ports & Docks. 4.2 The IRC recommendations on coverage of sectors:

The IRC deliberated on the issue of extended coverage in the CPI (IW) new series apart from these seven sectors. The major sectors discussed were Handloom, Textiles, Construction and Bidi sector. After discussion, the committee recommended that the coverage of sectors needs to be extended beyond the existing seven sectors, by adding at least one or two more sectors such as Handloom and Construction sectors, so that around 70% of the workers of non-agricultural sector get duly covered in the CPI (IW). The committee, while recognizing the fact that time has come to extend the scope of coverage under WCFIES, decided that the workers belonging to the newly recommended sectors should also fall within the ambit of definition of workers under the relevant legislation as is the case of workers belonging to seven existing sectors.

4.3 Pursuant to these recommendations a careful & comprehensive analysis has been made while exploring the feasibility of expansion of coverage to Handloom & Construction sectors. This includes a review of existing methodology with regard to sampling procedure etc., also endorsed by IRC and observations gathered through the field visit by Labour Bureau officials to Panipat, Haryana centre. Labour Bureau notes numerous measurement issues in the expansion of coverage to the mentioned sectors as detailed in the following paragraphs.

5 Issues involved in coverage of Handloom and Construction Sector

5.1 Handloom Sector (An Overview): There are about 43 lakh handloom workers in the country scattered in various villages of various States. The sector is basically decentralized in nature and the handloom weaving is a household activity. The sector is unorganized in nature, but there are Apex/Primary handloom cooperative societies, National/State level Handloom Corporations which engage handloom workers for various pre and post loom activities. There are about 21000 such Apex/Primary handloom cooperative societies of which about 16000 are functional. About 43 lakh handloom weavers/workers are involved in various activities connected with handloom weaving, dyeing, processing, marketing etc. These societies are registered under respective State Cooperative Societies Acts. Apart from cooperative societies, there are individual weavers, entrepreneurs, handloom exporters, who are part of the handloom sector. About 1500 exporters are also members of Handloom Export Promotion Council, Chennai. The Handloom Export Promotion Council is functioning under the administrative control of Office of the Development

8

Commissioner for Handlooms and it is involved in handloom export promotion activities.

5.2 Office of the Development Commissioner (Handlooms), M/O Textiles has

recommended the following centres to be covered under the sector in proposed series on the basis of concentration of weavers:

Sl. No. State Centre 1 Andhra Pradesh Dharamavaram 2 Assam Guwahati 3 Haryana Panipat 4 Karnataka Bagalkota 5 Tamil Nadu Salem 6 Uttar Pradesh Varanasi

5.3 Issues: At the outset it may be reiterated that the Index Review Committee had suggested “that the workers belonging to the newly recommended sectors should also fall within the ambit of definition of workers under the relevant legislation as is the case of workers belonging to seven existing sectors”.

There is however no sector-specific legislation in respect of handloom sector.

5.4 There are numerous handloom co-operative societies in a district/state besides state/national level corporations. Many handloom units having 20 or more workers are registered under the Factories Act 1948. Secondly, for some “registered factories”, handloom is a subsidiary activity. Thus, such units are already represented through the Factory Sector in the CPI (IW). Rest of the units are predominantly household based &/or unregistered.

5.5 These may pose serious problems in uniquely identifying the reference population – working class families with in the sector- as for undertaking the WCFI&ES each sector is treated as an independent entity in a centre & therefore sampling frame for each sector is prepared separately

. The issue is whether to treat the handloom workers employed in a “registered handloom factory”, as industrial workers within the ambit of factory sector or handloom sector. If the workers are treated as belonging to handloom sector then how to treat the handloom workers employed in a “registered factory with handloom as its subsidiary activity”, or how to apportion such workers between industrial workers and handloom workers. These definitional issues are difficult to resolve.

5.6 Frame construction and type of sampling to be adopted for the income & expenditure survey requires information on the concentration of working

9

class families in each ward of the municipal area in a centre. The sector for which the 80% or more working class families could be identified through these wards tenement sampling method is adopted; alternatively, payroll sampling method is used. To meet this requirement the definitional scope of the industrial worker and working class family will have to appropriately modify so as to uniquely/precisely identify the sector specific reference population to determine centre boundaries. The reliability of the weighting diagram would be compromised if the sampling frame for drawing the sample is faulty.

5.7 While attempting to expand the definitional scope, it has to be borne in mind that “industrial handloom workers

” (precisely falling under the factory sector) salaried & entitled to various benefits such as insurance cover, provident fund etc. and “handloom weavers” receiving wages on ‘piece rate’ basis & deprived of social security benefits may form entirely different class of manual workers for the purpose of CPI (IW).

5.8 Handloom units, being predominantly household based activity, are scattered and relatively small in respect of size of employment. This may have a bearing on the other important element in the construction of CPI (IW), prices. It is necessary to collect price data on periodic basis from the markets representing purchases of large segment of the working class population in each of the selected centres, in respect of all the items. For the scattered target population selection of representative market(s) and subsequently selection of representative outlet(s) would be an uphill task. It may happen that the price behavior as collected through the sample price quotations may not be statistically representative of the entire universe of consumer transactions in respect of item(s). It is needless to mention that systematic discrepancy in the price data may result in the severe distortion of the index.

5.9 Field visit undertaken by Labour Bureau officials to the Panipat, Haryana centre revealed that most of the handloom co-operative societies have become dysfunctional. Those still serving, besides other registered handloom units, rely heavily on the migrant weavers from the nearby states rather than on the traditional local weavers. For large number of migrant workers engaged in large proportion of scattered, unorganized & relatively smaller units in respect of employment size, formation of cluster of blocks or cluster of establishments for the conduct of WCFI&ES would be difficult. Selected sample families are to be staggered evenly over a full twelve - month period for removal of seasonal effects. Migrant nature of the weavers in conjunction with the unorganized characteristic of the sector may lead to high degree of non-response thereby invalidating the results. It also follows that it would be difficult to keep index realistic if the concerned population

10

group keep changing the outlet(s)/market(s). The nature of dispersed and migrant handloom may also affect the selection of houses for computing house rent index.

6 Construction Sector (An Overview):

6.1 The construction sector in India is the second largest economic activity after agriculture. This sector has grown at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate of about 11.1% over the last eight years on the back of massive infrastructure sectors such as ports, power plants, roads and rapid rise in housing demand. The construction industry remains largely unorganized. Organized industry segment comprises large firms in the corporate sector, class A contractors registered with various government construction bodies and thousands of small contractors, which compete for small jobs or work as subcontractors of prime or other contractors as detailed in the following table:

Organized Industry Segment

No. of Employees No. of Firms

Small < 200 25,000-30,000 Medium 200-500 >500

Large >500 250 Unorganized Industry Segment (Standalone

Contractors)

120,000

[Source: Report of the Working Group on Construction Sector (Institutional Financing Working) for the 12th five year plan, Dec 2011]

6.2 Consultation with NBCC:

i. Construction sector workers employed through contractors only, figure is not available with NBCC.

National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited (NBCC) has been consulted on inclusion of Construction sector in new CPI (IW) series. The comments of NBCC are summarized below:

ii. The workers belonging to construction sector are unorganized and fall within the ambit of definition of worker under Construction Labour Act/Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act etc.

iii. The workers in construction sector are usually engaged on casual basis directly by the contractor.

iv. The workers in construction sector do not reside permanently or at least 10-15 years at one place in the case of construction site.

v. Normally the workers in construction sector are not available for a longer period at their existing sites.

6.3 Issues: The workers engaged in the construction sector fall within the ambit of the Construction Labour Act/Building and Other Construction Workers

11

(Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and thus the criteria laid down by the Index Review Committee as mentioned earlier is supposedly met. Identification of workers for the sector may not be a concern; however, for the scope of CPI (IW) indices the “construction sector” has to be precisely defined as which type of construction activity would represent the sector. Construction can be classified in various types of activities such as building, road, bridge etc. Inclusion of all such activities may cause difficulty in ascertaining the geographic boundaries of the centre.

6.4 For the sake of operational convenience, it may be presumed that building construction would represent the sector, which is by and large concentrated in the urban areas, or in the periphery of cities/towns. Housing/Building projects of “individual households/ Stand-alone Contractors” engaging large number of workers may be difficult to mark out for the scope of CPI (IW); hence “index area” can be identified with big construction projects of companies/builders. For the workers engaged in these projects usually labour hutments/colonies are created by the concerned company/builder within/nearby the site of construction in compliance to the provisions laid down in the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 to this extent. These settlements usually have relatively short (and variable) life span, in comparison to the life of the index series, which may depend upon the status of a particular project. After completion of the project these settlements are demolished and the workers engaged shift to another project situated at a different location. It follows that this will have consequences both for the WCFI&ES as well as for the price collection mechanism.

6.5 Construction of reliable weighting diagram is vital for an unbiased and realistic index series. As undertaking WCFI&ES requires full twelve – month period, the demolition of these sample settlements during the survey period may create bias in the data. Moreover, migrant workers constitute large proportion of construction workers and thus seasonal variations in the no. of workers engaged at the time of harvest, festival etc would be sharp. Thus the consumption expenditure data arrived at from WCFI&ES would carry seasonal effects. In a nutshell, chances for distorted weighting diagram are very high.

The sample price quotations for the purpose of index series have to be collected on periodic basis from the markets patronized by the target population group. Because of a moving/shifting reference population, outlet(s)/market(s) have to be changed frequently, it may however induce severe bias in the indices as new outlet(s)/market(s) will often be distinctive in their pricing and service policy. For the same reasons, compiling house rent index would be difficult for this sector.

6.6 Labour Bureau, in the light of issues detailed herein above, is of the considered view that the expansion of scope of CPI (IW) to the Handloom and Construction sectors may not be operationally feasible and therefore the coverage

12

of the new series in respect of sectors may be kept limited to the existing seven sectors only.

In the first meeting of STC held on 2nd

7

July 2013, the members were apprised about the issues likely to come up in covering Handloom & Construction sector. The STC appreciated the aforementioned operational difficulties and was in broad agreement with the views expressed by the Labour Bureau.

However, several members in the first STC meeting spoke in favor of exploring feasibility to expand the scope to the aforementioned additional sectors and finally it emerged that Labour Bureau shall cover both Construction and Handloom sectors on pilot basis. Two-three centres from each Handloom & Construction sector shall be covered separately without forming the part of all-India series. The expertise gained during the pilot exercise would facilitate decision making for inclusion of these two sectors in the subsequent series.

7.1

Selection of Centres

Background

i. The sectors that are covered were divided into three groups. They are Mining, Plantations and remaining sectors. The total number of centres (78) was allocated among these in proportion of employment in each group to the total employment in the country as a whole. This was done mainly to ensure that the number of Mining and Plantation centres covered during the last survey is retained.

: The number of centres to be surveyed during the period 1999-2000 was primarily decided on the basis of increase in employment of industrial workers vis-a vis the last survey, inclusion of States/Union Territories not represented earlier, the requirement for building up a representative all-India average Consumer Price Index Series, operational feasibility and resources available. Based on the above criteria, 78 centres were selected covering about 55% of the total All India employment of industrial workers in the seven sectors as against the 47% covered by 70 centres in the last survey. The allocation of 78 centres amongst Factory, Mining and Plantation sectors in various State/Union Territories was done on the basis of following three stage process/criteria laid down by the TAC on SPCL:-

ii. The number of centres allocated to each sector was then distributed amongst States on the basis of industrial employment in a State subject to a maximum of 5 centres being allotted to a State in a sector , so that the smaller States get at least one centre.

iii. The name and location of centres were then selected on the basis of centre-wise industrial employment in consultation with the respective State Governments, wherein centres likely to be important in the coming years are also considered.

A list of 78 centres is at Annexure I and sector wise break-up thereof is as under:

13

Factory (Other five sectors) centres = 60

Plantation centres = 10

Mining centres = 8

7.2 The IRC recommendations on Selection of Centres:

7.2.1 The Committee felt that there was no need for suggesting any change at this stage in the procedure for the selection of centres. However, it recommended that the number of centres to be covered in the next WCFIES should be reviewed by the Labour Bureau and the new upcoming centres may be added in the next survey. The Committee further recommended that considering the pace and pattern of development in individual States in the coming few years the number of centres to be covered under the new Working Class Family Income & Expenditure Survey need to be increased and the new emerging sectors of employment need to be adequately represented.

7.2.2 The Committee observed that the total population of industrial workers has increased due to the thrust of economic growth process in the direction of non-agricultural sectors to which the XIth Five Year Plan Document also refers. Though services sector is having a formidable share in GDP, yet manufacturing, an important sector of the economy in its own right, is likely to provide future thrust of India’s economic growth. It is high time that the CPI for industrial workers should take cognizance of such future changes.

7.3 Proposed Centres

Description

:

7.3.1 The coverage of centres for the fresh WCFIES has been thoroughly reviewed on the basis of employment data furnished by the States/U.T’s for different sectors covered in the States. Lists of centres having concentration of workers and total employment details in the State/U.T’s relating to these sectors were obtained from various State Governments. Employment data pertaining to seven existing sectors have been used to work out the total centres to be covered in the new series. The employment of industrial workers in these seven sectors has registered an increase of 15% since the last survey of 1999-2000 in which 78 centres were covered. On the basis of this increase the number of centres to be covered in the new series works out to 90 centres.

Mining Plantation Other Five

Sectors

All Seven

Sectors Total employment @ the time of last survey 820987 961983 9928701 11711671

Total employment as on reference date for the proposed survey

744946 1118227 11620548 13483721

Change in % -9 16 17 15

14

Centres Allotted in 2001 series 8 10 60 78

Total Centres for the proposed new series of CPI-IW on the basis of total increase in employment in seven

existing sectors 90

Proportionate allocation of centres on the basis of sector wise employment

5 7 78 90

Actual Unadjusted Allocation 8 12 70 90

7.3.2 Allocation/selection of centres has been done in the following manner:

i. The total no. of centres i.e. 90 has been allocated to (a) plantation (b) mining and (c) other five sectors (viz. factories, railways, port & docks, public motor transport undertakings electricity generating and distributing establishments) keeping in view the proportion of their respective employment in the country and sector-specific growth in employment since last survey. Since mining sector has registered a negative growth in employment, therefore the number of centres presently covered in the sector, i.e., 8 has been retained. Plantation has been allotted 12 centres after taking into account increase in employment & remaining centres i.e. 70 have been allocated to the other five sectors.

ii. The number of centres allocated to a particular sector among the States/UT’s has been distributed on the basis of their industrial employment subject to a maximum allotment of 5 centres per state in a sector so as to provide representation to the smaller States. As emerged in the first STC meeting, Labour Bureau has deviated from this norm only in case of the State of Maharashtra because of large employment share. Once a centre is selected, working class families belonging to all seven sectors are covered. Therefore, in cases of centres common to more than one sector in a State have been duly adjusted. Moreover, few centres have been merged as proposed by the respective State Government or as per existing practice. The adjusted allocation of centres amongst the sectors on the above lines is as follows:

Description Mining Plantation Other Five

Sectors

All Seven Sectors

Actual adjusted Allocation 8 12 68* 88#(87+1)

*Two centres have been merged - Bangalore (R+U); Kolkata+24 North Parganas+24 South Parganas.

15

# includes an additional centre given to the State of Maharashtra

III. The actual selection of centres has been done on the basis of industrial importance of the centre as ascertained by the centre wise employment data. There are 65 common Centres & 23 new centres while 13 centres have been dropped. The proposed centres cover approximately 60% of total employment in the seven sectors. (Annexure II & III)

7.4

8

CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE/UT GOVERNMENTS & STC:

As per established practice, the Labour Bureau had sought the views of all the State Governments/ Union Territory Administrations on the centres proposed for the new series of CPI-IW. In this regard, the comments have been received from most of the States/Union Territories. The States/Union Territories have largely agreed to the centres proposed by the Labour Bureau. Recommendations, to replace/add some of the centres which the respective State/UT government considered to be of industrially more important &/or regionally more representative than the proposed one, have been duly incorporated. The final list of centres has been taken up with the STC, which broadly accorded its approval on the proposed centres with some suggestions. The STC desired that no. of centres in the State of Maharashtra be allocated an additional center by relaxing the norm of five centre per sector per State which has been acceded to. The STC also opined to hold further discussions on replacement of Raipur & Koriya by Raigad & Korba centres in Chhattisgarh and on inclusion of Varanasi centre in U. P. with the respective State governments. Annexure-IV summarizes consolidated view emerging from the consultation process that includes State Govts. /Union Territory Administrations, STC & Labour Bureau itself.

CONCLUSION

:

I. Labour Bureau seeks approval

of TAC Group on

a) Continued coverage of existing seven sectors, namely, Factories, Mines, Plantations, Railways, Public Motor Transport Undertakings, Electricity Generating & Distributing Establishments and Ports & Docks in the new series.

b) Extended coverage of 88 centres in the new series - for which indices would be complied, maintained and would constitute all – India series in respect of reference population belonging to existing seven sectors - as annexed herewith.

c) Allocation of an additional centre to Maharashtra State in the Factory sector by one time relaxing the cap of five centres in a sector in a state.

d) List of 88 centers actually proposed to be covered in the new series, which has been drawn by following the laid down criteria and finalized in consultation with the States/UT’s and the STC.

16

II. Labour Bureau also requests TAC Group to appropriately consider

the STC recommendation with regard to coverage of Construction and Handloom sectors on pilot/experimental basis so as to facilitate decision on inclusion of these sectors for coverage in the subsequent series of CPI (IW) series, especially in the backdrop of limitations in their coverage envisioned by Labour Bureau and spelled out in the agenda note.

Once an assenting decision on expansion of sectors is arrived at, as a prerequisite Labour Bureau seeks concurrence of TAC Group on following centres in respect of each of the additional sector:

Sl. No. Centre Sector Region

1 Guwahati Handloom Eastern India 2 Salem Handloom Southern India 3 Mumbai Construction Western India 4 Ghaziabad/G.B.Nagar Construction Northern India

Detailed methodology on identification of these centres is enclosed herewith (Annexure Y).

………………………………………………………………………..

17

ANNEXURE-I List of Selected Centres under Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers

(2001=100) Andhra Pradesh Jharkhand Pondicherry 1. • Hyderabad 25. • Ranchi-Hatia 51. • Pondicherry 2. • Guntur 26. • Jamshedpur Punjab 3. • Visakhapatnam 27. • Bokaro* 52. • Amritsar 4. • Warrangal 28. • Jharia 53. • Ludhiana 5. • Vijayawada* 29. • Giridih* 54. • Jalandhar* 6. • Godavarikhani* 30. • Kodarma Rajasthan Assam Jammu & Kashmir 55. • Ajmer 7. • Guwahati 31. • Srinagar 56. • Jaipur 8. • Doom-Dooma-Tinsukia Karnataka 57. • Bhilwara 9. • Mariani-Jorhat 32. • Bangalore Tamil Nadu 10. • Rangapara-Tezpur 33. • Hubli-Dharwar 58. • Chennai 11. • Labac-Silchar 34. • Mysore* 59. • Coimbatore Bihar 35. • Belgaum 60. • Madurai 12. • Monghyr-Jamalpur 36. • Merccara 61. • Tiruchirapally Chattisgarh Kerala 62. • Salem 13. • Bhilai 37. • Ernakulam/

• Alwaye 63. • Coonoor

Chandigarh 38. • Quilon Tripura 14. • Chandigarh 39. • Mundakkayam 64. • Tripura Delhi Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh 15. • Delhi 40. • Bhopal 65. • Ghazibad Goa 41. • Jabalpur 66. • Varanasi 16. • Goa 42. • Indore 67. • Kanpur Gujarat 43. • Chindwara 68. • Agra 17. • Ahmedabad Maharashtra 69. • Lucknow* 18. • Vadodara 44. • Mumbai West Bengal 19. • Bhavnagar 45. • Sholapur 70. • Kolkata 20. • Surat 46. • Nasik 71. • Howrah 21. • Rajkot 47. • Nagpur 72. • Asansol Haryana 48. • Pune 73. • Durgapur 22. • Yamunanagar Orissa 74. • Haldia 23. • Faridabad 49. • Rourkela 75. • Raniganj Himachal Pradesh 50. • Angul-Talchar* 76. • Darjeeling 24. • Himachal Pradesh 77. • Jalpaiguri 78. • Siliguri* * New Centres (9) Centre dropped in 1999-2000 from 1981-82 Survey 1. Gudur 2. Noamundi • Common centres to 1981-82 and New Working 3. Trivandrum 4. Barbil Class Family Income & Expenditure Survey 5. Saharanpur 6. Balaghat (69 Centres) 7. Kothagudem

18

Annexure-II

STATEMENT SHOWING LIST OF PROPOSED CENTRES SELECTED FOR WORKING CLASS FAMILY INCOME AND EXPENDITURE SURVEY 2013-14=100

SL. NO

STATE/U.T NAME OF CENTRE PROPOSED FOR NEW CPI-IW

NEW CENTRE FOR 1ST

DROPPED CENTRE TIME

1 2 3 4 5 1. ANDHRA

PRADESH 1. Hyderabad 2. Vishakhapatnam 3. Warrangal 4. Manchiryal(M) 5. Nellore 6. Guntur

1. Manchiryal(M) 2. Nellore

1. Godavarikhani 2. Vijaywada

2. ASSAM 7. Doom-Dooma-Tinsukia(P) 8. Labac Silchar(P) 9. Sibsagar(P) 10. Numaligarh -Golaghat(P) 11. Biswanath Chariali(P) 12. Guwahati

3. Sibsagar(P) 4. Numaligarh(P) 5. Biswanath

Chariali(P)

3. Mariani- Jorhat 4. Rangapara

3. BIHAR 13. Patna 14. Monghyr-Jamalpur

6. Patna

4. GOA 15. Goa 5. GUJARAT 16. Surat

17. Ahmedabad 18. Vadodara 19. Rajkot 20. Bhavnagar

6. HARYANA 21. Faridabad 22. Gurgaon 23. Yamunanagar

7. Gurgaon

7. HIMACHAL PRADESH

24. Himachal Pradesh

8. KARNATAKA 25. Bangalore 26. Belgaum 27. Mysore 28. Hubli-Dharwad 29. Mercara- Kodagu(P) 30. Davanagere 31. Gulbarga(P)

8. Davanagere 9. Gulbarga(P)

9. KERALA 32. Idukki(P) 33. Kollam 34. Ernakulam/Alwaye

10. Idukki 5. Mundakyam-Kottayam

10. MADHYA PRADESH

35. Jabalpur 36. Indore 37. Bhopal 38. Chindwara(M)

11. MAHARASHTRA 39. Mumbai 40. Thane 41. Pune 42. Nagpur 43. Sholapur 44. Nasik

11. Thane

12. ORISSA 45. Cuttak 46. Keonjhar(M) 47. Angul-Tilchar

12. Cuttak 13. Keonjhar(M)

6. Rourkela

13. PONDICHERRY 48. Puducherry 14. PUNJAB 49. Amritsar

50. Ludhiana 51. Jallandhar 52. Sangrur

14. Sangrur

19

15. RAJASTHAN 53. Jaipur 54. Alwar 55. Bhilwara

15. Alwar

7. Ajmer

16. TAMIL NADU 56. Coimbatore 57. Salem 58. Virudhu Nagar 59. Chennai 60. Madurai 61. Triunelveli(M) 62. Conoor (P)

16. Virudhu Nagar 17. Trirunelvelli

8. Tiruchirapally

17. TRIPURA 63. Tripura (P) 18. UTTAR PRADESH 64. Ghaziabad/G.B.Nagar

65. Varanasi 66. Kanpur 67. Lucknow 68. Agra

19. WEST BENGAL 69. Kolkata 70. Haldia 71. Durgapur 72. Raniganj(M) 73. Jalpaiguri(P) 74. Darjeeling(P) 75. Howrah

9. Asansol 10. Siliguri

20. JHARKHAND 76. Bokaro 77. Dhanbad-Jharia(M) 78. Jamshedpur 79. Ramgarh(M)

18. Ramgarh

11. Giridih 12. Koderma 13. Ranchi-Hatia

21. CHATTISGARH 80. Raipur

81. Koriya(M) 82. Bhilai

19. Raipur 20. Koriya

22. DELHI 83. Delhi 23. UTTRAKHAND 84. Udham Singh Nagar 21. Udham Singh

Nagar

24. DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI

85. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 22. Dadra & Nagar Haveli

25. CHANDIGARH 86. Chandigarh 26. MEGHALAYA 87. Shillong 23. Shillong 27. JAMMU &

KASHMIR 88. Jammu & Kashmir

Common Centres: 65 New Centres: 23 Dropped Centres: 13

20

Annexure-III Sl. NO

STATE/U.T NAME OF CENTRE PROPOSED FOR NEW

CPI-IW

EMPLOYMENT Others

Mining Plantation Total

% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 ANDHRA

PRADESH 1 Hyderabad- 93204 93204 2 Vishakhapatnam 77917 77917 3 Warrangal 37995 37995 4 Manchiryal(M) -

Adilabad 2813 28574 31387 5 Nellore 25901 4070 29971 6 Guntur 25196 1190 26386

263026 33834 0 296860 2.20 2 ASSAM 7 Doom-Dooma-Tinsukia(P) 29047 149823 178870

8 Labac-Silchar(P) 10973 51338 62311 9 Sibsagar(P) 12834 75436 88270

10 Numaligarh- Golaghat(P)

10305

62863 73168

11 Biswanath Chariali(P) 19371 55529 74900 12 Guwahati 57217 17805 75022

139747 0 412794 552541 4.10 3 BIHAR 13 Patna 86584 901 87485

14 Monghyr-Jamalpur 32425 232 32657 119009 1133 0 120142 0.89 4 GOA 15 Goa 53219 53219 0.39 5 GUJARAT 16 Surat 93044 93044

17 Ahmedabad 120786 120786 18 Vadodara 80770 80770 19 Rajkot 47821 47821 20 Bhavnagar 12394 12394

354815 354815 2.63 6 HARYANA 21 Faridabad 118690 118690

22 Gurgaon 118761 118761 23 Yamunanagar 47849 47849

285300 0 0 285300 2.12 7 HIMACHAL-

PRADESH 24 Himachal Pradesh 108359

108359 0.80 8 KARNATAKA 25 Bangalore 772787 69 772856

26 Belgaum 65201 1900 67101 27 Mysore 78530 50 78580 28 Hubli-Dharwad 48026 600 48626 29 Mercara-Kodagu(P) 9580 30624 40204 30 Davanagere 30100 70 2810 32980 31 Gulbarga(P) 27287 13801 5947 47035

1031511 16490 39381 1087382 8.06 9 KERALA 32 Idukki(P) 1134 37531 38665

33 Kollam 128110 5215 133325 34 Ernakulam/Alwaye 13720 1500 15220

142964 0 44246 187210 1.39 10 MADHYA

PRADESH 35 Jabalpur 76624 1928 78552 36 Indore 77247 77247 37 Bhopal 32644 32644 38 Chindwara (M) 17067 8694 25761

203582 10622 214204 1.59

21

11 MAHARASHTRA 39 Mumbai 421493 69 421562 40 Thane 221824 221824 41 Pune 345245 35 345280 42 Nagpur 119033 9209 128242 43 Nasik 78675 0 78675

44 Solapur 38786 38786 1225056 9313 1234369 9.15

12 ORISSA 45 Cuttak 27089 120 27209 46 Keonjhar(M) 10416 18850 29266 47 Angul 22348 8402 30750

59853 27372 0 87225 0.65 13 PONDICHERRY 48 Puducherry 71449 71449 0.53 14 PUNJAB 49 Amritsar 38046 38046

50 Ludhiana 194352 194352 51 Jallandhar 55207 55207 52 Sangrur 53542 53542

341147 0 0 341147 2.53 15 RAJASTHAN 53 Jaipur 110330 110330

54 Alwar 86278 86278 55 Bhilwara 42504 42504

239112 0 0 239112 1.77 16 TAMIL NADU 56 Coimbatore 233435 93 20040 253568

57 Salem 137605 12000 2129 151734 58 Virudhu Nagar 104980 3230 401 108611 59 Chennai 118097 0 530 118627 60 Madurai 61249 4200 355 65804 61 Triunelveli(M) 44357 23510 67867 61 Conoor(P) 14794 0 55169 69963

714517 43033 78624 836174 6.20 17 TRIPURA 63 Tripura (P) 40772 16892 57664 0.43 18 UTTAR

PRADESH 64 Ghaziabad /G.B.Nagar 246331 246331 65 Varanasi 28328 28328 66 Kanpur 53125 53125 67 Lucknow 95713 95713 68 Agra 53220 53220

476717 0 0 476717 3.54 19 WEST BENGAL 69 Kolkatta 232811 3164 235975

70 Haldia 77677 94 77771 71 Durgapur 73906 73906 72 Raniganj(M) 28511 28511 73 Jalpaiguri(P) 22615 54 127166 149835 74 Darjeeling(P) 10414 434 71817 82665 75 Howrah 73563 73563

490986 32257 198983 722226 5.36 20 JHARKHAND 46 Bokaro 53769 17593 71362

77 Dhanbad(M) 2392 58941 61333 78 Jamshedpur 124833 56088 180921 79 Ramgarh (M) 7607 20048 27655

188601 152670 341271 2.53 21 CHATTISGARH 80 Raipur 77512 551 78063

81 Koriya(M) 70 17869 17939 82 Bhilai 37356 3411 40767

114938 21831 136769 1.01

22

22 DELHI 83 Delhi 173964 173964 1.29 23 UTTRAKHAND 84 Udham Singh Nagar 49548

49548 0.37 24 DADRA &

NAGAR HAVELI

85 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 50000

50000 0.37 25 CHANDIGARH 86 Chandigarh 20590 20590 0.15 26 MEGHALAYA 87 Shillong 13863 13863 0.10 27 JAMMU &

KASHMIR 88 Jammu/Srinagar 38408

38408 0.28 8150528 60.45 13483721

23

Annexure-IV

STATEMENT SHOWING LIST OF PROVISIONAL CENTRES AFTER CONSULTATION WITH STATE GOVT. /U.T's AND STANDING TRIPARTITE COMMITTEE (STC) CONSTITUTED FOR CPI (IW) BASE UPDATION

SL. NO

STATE/U.T NAME OF CENTRE PROPOSED FOR

NEW CPI-IW

CONSOLIDATED VIEW/REMARKS

1 2 3 1. ANDHRA

PRADESH 1. Hyderabad 2. Vishakhapatnam 3. Warrangal 4. Manchiryal(M) 5. Nellore 6. Guntur

Agreed

2. ASSAM 7. Doom-Dooma-Tinsukia(P)

8. Labac Silchar(P) 9. Sibsagar(P) 10. Numaligarh-

Golaghat(P) 11. Biswanath

Chariali(P) 12. Guwahati

Agreed

3. BIHAR 13. Patna 14. Monghyr-Jamalpur

State government requested to continue Monghyr-Jamalpur centre in the new series. The same may be acceded to.

4. GOA 15. Goa Reply Awaited 5. GUJARAT 16. Surat

17. Ahmedabad 18. Vadodara 19. Rajkot 20. Bhavnagar

Agreed

6. HARYANA 21. Faridabad 22. Gurgaon 23. Yamunanagar

Agreed

7. HIMACHAL PRADESH

24. Himachal Pradesh Agreed

8. KARNATAKA 25. Bangalore 26. Belgaum 27. Mysore 28. Hubli-Dharwad 29. Mercara- Kodagu(P 30. Davanagere 31. Gulbarga(P)

Agreed

9. KERALA 32. Idukki(P) 33. Kollam 34. Ernakulam/Alwaye

Agreed

10. MADHYA PRADESH

35. Jabalpur 36. Indore 37. Bhopal 38. Chindwara(M)

Agreed

11. MAHARASHTRA 39. Mumbai 40. Thane 41. Pune 42. Nagpur 43. Sholapur 44. Nasik

State Govt. requested that Mumbai & Thane should be selected as two different centres. As emerged in the STC, by relaxing the norm of five centres per sector per State six centres have been allocated in the State. The State has agreed upon on the selected centres.

24

12. ORISSA 45. Cuttak 46. Keonjhar(M) 47. Angul-Tilchar

Requested for inclusion of Sambalpur & Berhrampur. State has been advised to update the base of these centres in State Series.

13. PONDICHERRY 48. Puducherry Agreed 14. PUNJAB 49. Amritsar

50. Ludhiana 51. Jallandhar 52. Sangrur

Agreed

15. RAJASTHAN 53. Jaipur 54. Alwar 55. Bhilwara

Agreed

16. TAMIL NADU 56. Coimbatore 57. Salem 58. Virudhu Nagar 59. Chennai 60. Madurai 61. Triunelveli(M) 62. Conoor (P)

Agreed

17. TRIPURA 63. Tripura (P) Agreed 18. UTTAR PRADESH 64. Ghaziabad/G.B.Nag

65. Varanasi 66. Kanpur 67. Lucknow 68. Agra

Reply awaited on inclusion of Varanasi centre.

19. WEST BENGAL 69. Kolkata 70. Haldia 71. Durgapur 72. Raniganj(M) 73. Jalpaiguri(P) 74. Darjeeling(P) 75. Howrah

Reply awaited on selection of Durgapur as a centre instead of Burdwan (Burdwan+ Durgapur+Asansol) due to anticipated operational difficulties.

20. JHARKHAND 76. Bokaro 77. Dhanbad-Jharia(M) 78. Jamshedpur 79. Ramgarh(M)

Agreed.

21. CHATTISGARH 80. Raipur 81. Koriya(M) 82. Bhilai

STC opined to hold further discussions on replacement of Raipur & Koriya by Raigad & Korba centres.

22. DELHI 83. Delhi Agreed 23. UTTRAKHAND 84. Udham Singh Naga Reply Awaited 24. DADRA &

NAGAR HAVELI 85. Dadra &

Nagar Haveli Agreed

25. CHANDIGARH 86. Chandigarh Agreed 26. MEGHALAYA 87. Shillong Agreed 27. JAMMU &

KASHMIR 88. Jammu & Kashmir Agreed

Common Centres: 65 New Centres: 23 Dropped Centres: 13

25

ANNEXURE-X

MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF STANDING TRIPARTITE COMMITTEE ON BASE REVISION OF CONSUMER PRICE INDEX NUMBERS

First meeting of the Standing Tripartite Committee (STC) on Base Revision of

Consumer Price Index Numbers for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) was held in Shram Shakti

Bhavan, New Delhi on 2nd July, 2013. It was chaired by Sh. P.K.Padhy, Principal Labour &

Employment Advisor, Ministry of Labour & Employment. List of participants is annexed.

After welcoming the participants in the first meeting of STC, the Chairman briefly

dwelled upon background of the CPI Base Revision exercise, its utility; stages involved in it,

etc. and invited the participants to make their valuable suggestions on the agenda items.

Thereafter, Sh. Daljeet Singh, Director General, Labour Bureau informed the

participants that at the time of releasing the current series of Consumer Price Index

Numbers for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW), on request of the stakeholders, Ministry of Labour

& Employment had assured to put a system in place to ensure their participation at every

level of next such exercise to be undertaken by Labour Bureau. Accordingly, the present

Standing Tripartite Committee has been constituted by the Ministry to ensure active

participation of stakeholders at all levels of the activity. He inter-alia briefed the participants

about the CPI base revision exercises undertaken by Labour Bureau in the past, basic

principles followed in such exercises, steps involved in them, agenda items of the present

meeting, procedure followed for arriving at coverage of sectors and selection of Centers,

latest Index Review Committee recommendations regarding coverage of sectors and

selection of Centers, etc. While soliciting their valuable inputs in finalization of Sectors and

Centers to be covered, Shri Singh requested the members to keep their suggestions specific

to these agenda items of the first meeting.

This was followed by a detailed presentation made by Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, Director,

Labour Bureau, during which details on background and uses of CPI-IW, desirable frequency

of base revision, IRC recommendations, feasibility study undertaken by Labour Bureau and

likely issues on inclusion of handloom and construction Sectors for coverage in new series of

CPI-IW, proposed coverage of centers drawn in consultation with respective States/UTs, etc.

were shared with the participants of the meeting.

26

Thereafter Director General, Labour Bureau handed over the floor to the house for

deliberations on the agenda items. Detailed deliberations held and decisions taken in the

meeting are listed below:

Selection of Centers

i) Sh. V.K. Sharma,Working President, INTUC (Chhattisgarh branch) was of the

opinion that Raigarh and Korba in Chhattisgarh are fast upcoming centers in

terms of employment and may be considered for coverage in the new CPI-IW

series in addition to Bhilai, Koriya and Raipur already proposed for coverage by

Labour Bureau. Director General, Labour Bureau clarified that following the laid

down procedure of allocation of total centres among the States/UTs in

proportion to their working class population, the Chhattisgarh State has already

been allocated its share of 3 centres and selected centers are in consultation

with the State. As such, additional allocation of center (s) to the State is not

feasible. He, however, mentioned that replacement of the center (s) proposed

by Labour Bureau by the center (s) suggested by Sh. Sharma could be considered

and assured that Labour Bureau will hold further consultations with the State to

replace the existing Center (s) with the centers suggested by Sh. Sharma.

ii) Commenting on the selection of Centers for Maharashtra State, Sh. S.S. Paranjpe

of Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh stated that while 3 centers (Mumbai, Thane and

Taloja-Raigad) represent Konkan region, 1 center (Pune) represents Western

Maharashtra region and 1 center (Nagpur) represents Vidarbha region; the

khandesh region gets unrepresented with the exclusion of Nashik center, and

Marathwada region is also not represented. For balanced regional coverage in

the State, Sh. Paranjpe suggested that Nashik center, which has significant

employment in the sectors proposed for coverage may be considered for

coverage under the new series.

Sh Vilas Kumar Kesavdas Buwa, Dy. Labour Commissioner representing

Government of Maharashtra agreed to the suggestion of Sh. Paranjpe. He further

stated that Sholapur center of the existing series, which has been proposed for

exclusion from the new series, may be retained.

27

Sh. D.S. kolamkar, Senior Advisor, Deptt. Of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance

suggested that keeping in view the significantly large employment in the State,

especially in the Ports & Docks sector, Maharashtra state could be considered for

allocation of an additional center by allowing one-time relaxation of the cap of 5

centers in a Sector in a State. Sh. Paranjpe of BMS also held the same view. This

was largely supported by the members of the committee.

Considering the feelings of respected members in the matter, it was decided that

the suggestion will be considered in consultation with TAC on SPCL and if

approved the following 6 centers will be taken up for coverage in Maharashtra:

• Mumbai

• Thane

• Pune

• Nagpur

• Nashik

• Sholapur

iii) Sh. G.K. Lath, Chartered Accountant, felt that better representation of selected

sectors could be attained by regrouping the sectors in more than 3 groups

proposed by Labour Bureau for allocation of centers. Director General, Labour

Bureau commented that following the procedure approved by the TAC on SPCL

for last base revision exercise, the exercise of allocation of centers among

sectors/sector group is already over and list of actual centers has been drawn in

consultation with respective States/UTs. As the consultation process is a time

consuming activity, it may not be desirable to regroup the sectors at this stage.

He, however, stated that Sh. Lath’s suggestion could be considered in the next

base revision exercise.

Commenting on the list of U.P State centers drawn by Labour Bureau in

consultation with the State Government, Sh. Lath stated that Varanasi center

with around 6000 employment in selected sectors does not deserve inclusion in

the list. As a remedy to such situations, he suggested that some minimum

employment criterion, say 20000, may be laid down for becoming a center

eligible for coverage.

28

Director General, Labour Bureau assured that the matter of inclusion of Varanasi

in the list of centers will appropriately be taken up with the respective State

Government.

Subject to consideration of above observations, the selection of centers as

proposed by Labour Bureau was approved by the committee. It was, however,

felt that, if necessary, total number of centers for the new series can go up to

90.

Coverage of sectors

i) The following issues involved in extending the coverage of new CPI-IW

series to the Construction and Handloom sectors were reiterated by

Labour Bureau:

Construction

En-block moving of workers on project completion- Causing

serious limitations in conduct of WCFI&ES

Large seasonal variations in number of workers engaged-resulting in seasonal variations in consumption expenditure data-may distort weighting diagram

Considerably short life span of construction projects in

comparison to life span of CPI-IW series.

Frequently moving/shifting of reference population may

necessitate frequent changes in representative markets and

outlets -inducing severe bias in indices

While deliberating on the issue, Sh. G.K. Lath, Chartered Accountant,

felt that considering the employment size of the sector, construction

sector may still be considered for coverage. He also suggested

covering service sector such as Hotel industry, education, etc.

Sh. T.K. Basu , Dy. Director General, Ministry of Labour &

Employment suggested to explore coverage of I.T. sector.

Director general, Labour Bureau clarified that service sector could be

taken care of at the time of derivation of Weighting Diagram and

setting up of Price Collection Machinery.

29

Ms. Pratibha Pandya, Senior Co-ordinator, SEWA suggested that

despite issues involved in its coverage, the construction sector merits

coverage as the workers in the sector are at great disadvantage vis-à-

vis other sector workers. She suggested exploring some mechanism

for coverage of this sector. In response to the request of Dy. Director

General, Ministry of Labour & Employment to suggest some

mechanism, Ms. Pandya assured to send a note in the matter.

Sh. V.K. Sharma of INTUC also felt that construction sector may be

covered.

Sh. M.L. Sharma, Economic Advisor, Government of Punjab

suggested to study international practices in coverage of

construction sector.

Sh. Kamleshwar Ojha, Dy. Director General, C.S.O. felt that

considering the technical issues involved in coverage of additional

sectors, we may agree to the proposal of Labour Bureau to restrict

the coverage to existing 7 sectors.

In his written response, Sh. S.S.Paranjpe of BMS has appreciated

various difficulties Labour Bureau envisages to encounter in coverage

of Construction sector. Considering huge employment in this sector,

Sh. Paranjpe still felt that the sector deserves coverage under CPI-IW.

However, keeping in view the fact that time involved in exploring

further feasibility of coverage of construction sector at this stage will

be significant and will delay the whole exercise of base revision to a

large extent, Sh. Paranjpe suggested that such feasibility may be

undertaken by Labour Bureau in the intervening period of the

current and the subsequent base revision exercises.

Handloom • No sector-specific legislation • Serious limitations in uniquely identifying sector workers • Scattered and predominantly household based handloom units

would pose difficulties in identifying Center boundaries for conduct of WCFI&ES and

• For selection of dwellings for computing House Rent Index

Sh. S.S. Paranjpe of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh felt that though there is

no sector specific legislation in respect of Handloom sector, the

30

sector workers are covered under the Minimum Wages Act. He

accordingly suggested covering the sector.

However, Shri S. S. Paranjape in his additional observation/

suggestions on coverage of sectors and selection of Centres for new

series of CPI-IW dated 16th July, 2013 has now suggested to cover

Handloom and Construction Sectors in two or three Centres on pilot

basis. Therefore, in view of the above suggestions, Labour Bureau

shall cover both Construction and Handloom sector on a pilot basis.

Two-three centres from each Handloom & Construction sector shall

be covered separately and shall not form part of All India series.

The expertise gained during the pilot exercise will facilitate decision

making for inclusion of these two sectors in the subsequent series.

This was agreed by all.

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.

31

Annexure -Y

As emerged in STC, two centres from each of the Handloom & Construction Sectors (in total four) may be covered on experimental basis in the new series.

Identification of Centres:

For generating diversified experimental indices, one centre each may be

allocated to East, West, South & North India ensuring thereby broad regional representation.

To facilitate comparison, two sets of weighting system may have to be generated – with existing seven sectors & with all the sectors (existing seven sectors + Handloom &/or Construction sector). Therefore, the centres for experimental study may be selected from the 88 centres itself proposed for the new series. It is also obvious to have the centres having large employment share so that the generated weighting estimates are robust.

For Handloom sector, six centres have been recommended by the Office of the Development Commissioner (Handloom), M/O Textiles as mentioned in the para 5.2 of the Agenda note. Out of these six centres, three centres namely, Guwahati, Salem & Varanasi have found place in the list of 88 centres each falling in Eastern, Southern & Northern part of India respectively. As Assam & Tamil Nadu have substantial employment share (both these states are second largest by the size of employment in their respective Eastern & Southern region after West Bengal and Karnataka), Guwahati & Salem may be selected as “centres for Handloom sector”. Thus, it exhausts the allocation of one centre each to Eastern & Southern India.

No single reliable source may be available for the centre wise data on construction workers, therefore a logical proxy proposition – Industrialization may consequence of/cause urbanization, which would require/generate construction activity in the area - leads to the most populous/ urbanized metropolitans as possible centres for construction sector. As remaining centres for Construction sector are to be identified from the Western and Northern India, Mumbai is a natural selection for

32

the centre of construction sector from the western India being the most populous/urbanized as per the latest population census 2011 and having maximum share of employment of Industrial workers. Ghaziabad/G.B.Nagar may be taken as second centre for construction sector from the Northern India being a prominent & upcoming industrial centre of Uttar Pradesh having significant construction activity. The centre is also adjacent to the Delhi centre & therefore may facilitate implicit comparison of two sets of weighting diagrams with the Delhi centre as well.

Therefore, four centres for generating experimental weighting system with expanded coverage to Handloom & Construction sectors are as follows:

Sl. No. Centre Sector Region 1 Guwahati Handloom Eastern India 2 Salem Handloom Southern India 3 Mumbai Construction Western India 4 Ghaziabad/G.B.Nagar Construction Northern India

…………………………………………………………..