2026-02-19 / Debate (Continued): Judicature (Amendment) Bill and Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Bill - Committee and Third Reading 2026-02-19
## 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.
Hon. Deputy Chairperson, first I wish to raise the plantation workers’ wage issue. The ruling party must understand that while we support wage increases, wages must reach workers fairly. That is why, as trade unionists, we supported the Budget, which allocated Rs. 5 billion and set a net daily wage of Rs. 1,750. Since the 10th of this month, many places have paid Rs. 1,750; we do not deny that.
However, this payment has been tied to an agreement signed by relevant parties. From the beginning, we have demanded to see the clauses. It is wrong to pay wages while stripping workers of protective safeguards. The Plantation Companies, and the Secretaries to the Plantation and Labour Ministries, have signed. Journalists and trade unions have requested a copy through the NLAC and other channels; even civil organizations and RTI applications have sought it. Yet, to date, the agreement has not been disclosed. The Government must table the document in Parliament.
What we have received is not a formal agreement but a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), and it contains problems. Clause 4.1 states that service gratuity will be paid only if a worker completes 180 days of work. We have consistently opposed this—not today or yesterday, but for years. I have twice secured wage increases—Rs. 250 and Rs. 350—and each time companies demanded the 180-day condition for service gratuity. I place Clause 4.1 before the House.
Please do not agree to this condition; it will seriously harm workers. I speak as a trade unionist: under current circumstances it is hard for a worker to obtain 25 days of work per month from the estate manager, let alone 180 days in a year. Some companies deliberately stop workers at 175 days to avoid the legal obligation to register them.
Under Sri Lankan labour law, a worker who completes 180 days continuously must be registered. Companies do not want to register because then EPF, ETF, service gratuity, maternity benefits, death benefits and all entitlements must be paid on the basic wage. Managers therefore manipulate days to avoid registration and benefits.
I urge the Government not to accept this clause and to ensure transparency of all terms, while protecting workers’ legal rights along with the wage increase.