Hon. Jeevan Thondaman

Hon. Jeevan Thondaman raised two issues in his speech. First, he called on the Government to table in Parliament a Memorandum of Understanding related to a wage issue signed the previous month, noting that the Government had refused to release the document despite requests from trade unions, media, politicians, and civil society organisations. Second, he highlighted a humanitarian crisis in the Hanguranketha area, specifically in the localities of Hope, Rockwood, Hewaheta, and Loolkandura, where 11 deaths had been reported in Loolkandura alone, and sought a government response regarding the absence of assistance to the affected communities.

## Summary Hon. Jeevan Thondaman raised concerns about the plantation sector wage Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), highlighting two principal deficiencies: first, that employers can manipulate the 180-day threshold required for service gratuity eligibility to deny workers their entitlements, making the Rs. 200 compensation inadequate; and second, that the wage increase applies only to approximately 78,000 registered estate workers, excluding casual and smallholding workers who have no legal avenue for redress. He further noted that Clause 8 of the MoU explicitly states it carries no legal obligations, leaving workers without recourse if employers fail to comply or manipulate task registrations, and called on the Ministry of Labour to take direct responsibility for proper implementation. Thondaman acknowledged the President's intervention in securing a basic wage increase but urged close monitoring of its implementation, noting that the agreed figure had shifted from Rs. 2,138 to Rs. 1,750, and cautioned against mixing trade union and party politics in handling plantation workers' wage issues.

## Summary Hon. Thondaman raised concerns about the implementation of the recently agreed plantation workers' daily wage of Rs. 1,750, which was supported by a Rs. 5 billion Budget allocation. While acknowledging that payments have commenced, he highlighted that the underlying agreement — which he characterised as an MoU rather than a formal agreement — has not been made public despite requests through the NLAC, RTI applications, and other channels, and demanded that the Government table the document in Parliament. He specifically objected to Clause 4.1 of the MoU, which conditions service gratuity entitlement on a worker completing 180 days of work annually, arguing that estate managers routinely manipulate workers' working days — deliberately capping them at 175 — to circumvent the legal obligation to register workers and thereby avoid EPF, ETF, gratuity, and other statutory benefits. He urged the Government to reject this clause and ensure that the wage increase is not accompanied by the erosion of workers' existing legal protections.