In light of a recent incident involving workplace harassment at a popular restaurant chain, conversations surrounding labour exploitation and employee rights have resurfaced. But how regulated is labour in private institutions and organisations in Sri Lanka, and are employees adequately educated about and aware of their rights?
Against this backdrop, The Sunday Morning looked into the country’s legal provisions, implementation mechanisms, employee awareness, the progress made, and the gaps that still need to be addressed within Sri Lanka’s labour framework.
ILO ratification and implementation of law
Speaking to The Sunday Morning on the recent incident, Deputy Minister of Labour Mahinda Jayasinghe said that the Labour Department’s immediate response was to investigate possible labour law violations that fell within its existing legal powers.
He stated that investigations had already been initiated into whether Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees’ Trust Fund (ETF) contributions had been properly paid, while officials had also been instructed to examine all 12 branches of the business.
“They have also been asked to look into matters relating to the employees, including whether workers who had been terminated were paid the compensation they were entitled to. I have not received that report yet. At the moment, these are the actions we can take.”
Are Sri Lankan workplaces protected by law against harassment? Regarding this, International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No.190 (C190) is the first international treaty to recognise the right of everyone to a world of work free from violence and harassment. Adopted in June 2019 by the ILO and having entered into force on 25 June 2021, it establishes a comprehensive global framework to prevent and eliminate workplace abuse.
Commenting on workplace harassment more broadly in Sri Lanka, Jayasinghe said that Sri Lanka had recently taken an important step by ratifying the ILO Convention No.190 on violence and harassment in the world of work. He explained that although the convention had been adopted by the ILO in 2019, Sri Lanka only ratified it last year and had since submitted the required documentation to the ILO. The next step is to formulate the relevant laws within the country.
“In the meantime, we have already conducted training and awareness programmes for labour officers and the relevant officials. Just about two weeks ago, we held a two-day workshop, a Training of Trainers (TOT) programme. Through that, we expect to continue educating labour officers and raise public awareness as well,” he said.
Meanwhile, Jayasinghe said that the Government expected to introduce the necessary legislation by around March next year. He added that until the new legal framework was in place, incidents such as workplace harassment had to be addressed under existing civil law provisions.
Initiatives in place
In the practical sense, the Government cannot monitor every workplace on a daily basis, and therefore several mechanisms are needed to regulate labour practices and respond to complaints.
Ministry of Labour Secretary S.M. Piyatissa told The Sunday Morning that labour laws applied across private sector institutions, with district labour offices and sub-offices handling complaints while labour officers conducted inspections either in response to complaints or when they identified possible violations. Piyatissa also noted the role of a social dialogue programme that was in place between employers, employees, and trade unions in preventing workplace disputes before they escalated.
“If issues are reported before they become serious, the Labour Department can intervene, discuss the matter, and try to resolve it. Where there are serious violations, legal action will be taken,” he said.
Commenting on the department’s capacity, Piyatissa acknowledged that vacancies among labour officers had affected inspections, but said that recruitment efforts were underway. He explained that a significant number of vacancies had now been filled, with around 40 newly recruited labour officers deployed after completing their training this month.
He also highlighted that workers were no longer required to visit a labour office in person to lodge complaints.
“Anyone can submit a complaint through our online complaint management system available on the department’s website. If they wish, they can even submit complaints anonymously. Once a complaint is received, we look into it. If the complainant has provided a telephone number, they will receive updates through SMS whenever action is taken on the complaint, including when notices are issued or parties are summoned.”
He said that the complaint mechanism applied to the private sector as well as semi-Government institutions such as State corporations and statutory boards, while ministries and Government departments followed separate procedures under the public service framework.
Addressing workplace harassment legislation, Piyatissa said that draft provisions were currently being discussed as part of the wider labour law reform process. He noted that workplace harassment had been incorporated into the proposed reforms together with occupational safety and health provisions.
“Occupational safety and health provisions currently come under the Factories Ordinance of 1942, so they are based on conditions that existed at that time. Since they are no longer suitable for present-day workplaces, we are in the process of updating them.
“After signing, Sri Lanka has one year to introduce the necessary laws and regulations. We have already prepared the required draft as part of the labour law reforms, and we hope to submit it to the National Labour Advisory Council (NLAC) for its observations,” he said.
Piyatissa added that separate work was also underway regarding the public sector, as disciplinary procedures for Government employees fell under the Public Service Commission and the Ministry of Public Administration. He said that proposals had already been submitted and a Cabinet-appointed committee comprising officials from the relevant ministries was discussing the necessary amendments.
On the issue of worker awareness, Piyatissa said that trade unions played an important role, while the Labour Department also carried out its own awareness programmes.
“A considerable part of that responsibility lies with the trade unions, and we work together with them. Through the National Institute of Labour Studies, we conduct programmes to educate trade unions. In addition, our labour officers visit workplaces at the provincial level to educate workers about their rights. We also pay special attention to sectors that we identify as vulnerable,” he added.
Urgent need for labour law reforms, union protection
Meanwhile, speaking to The Sunday Morning, civil and labour lawyer and Commercial and Industrial Workers’ Union (CIWU) President Swasthika Arulingam said that labour exploitation was built into the labour and service process, despite Sri Lanka having legal provisions intended to protect workers.
She pointed out that there were laws restricting working hours, protective provisions on overtime payments, and regulations governing the employment of women and children. However, she said that the main issue lay in enforcement, as the Labour Department did not actively intervene by monitoring violations of labour laws.
According to Arulingam, another issue is the steady decline of trade unions in the private sector. She explained that before the 1980s, although the Labour Department had not had the capacity to inspect every workplace, there had been an independent mechanism within private sector establishments through trade unions.
“Unions are a collective of workers which can look into workers’ welfare independently of the management or the company. They can demand better working conditions and even stop labour exploitation. Unfortunately, since the 1980s, together with the Government, the private sector has actively worked towards anti-union practices and destroying unions inside production spaces. Today, less than 10% of Sri Lanka’s total workforce is unionised,” she observed.
Arulingam said that the recent assault allegation involving a private sector employee illustrated why unions remained important. She added that if the service sector was unionised, this would not have been allowed because the union would intervene to prevent physical abuse of workers. She also noted that this situation was the same in almost all private sector establishments which involved production or service.
“There is no one to intervene on a daily basis. Abuse is not an occasional thing. It happens on a daily basis. Without unions, there is no one to independently intervene every day to ensure workers are protected from harmful and abusive working conditions.”
Arulingam noted that workplaces with active unions had repeatedly shown that unions could improve working conditions and make workplaces healthier and safer for employees.
She added that while the Labour Department also had a role to play, it was unrealistic to expect it to inspect every workplace every day.
“It would be impossible for the Labour Department to intervene in every workplace on a daily basis. This is precisely why we say there should be unions. The Labour Department increasingly focuses mainly on basic statutory violations, such as whether wages and overtime have been paid, rather than looking into the actual working conditions.”
Arulingam referred to another case where an apparel sector worker had died in the previous year after repeatedly requesting permission to seek medical treatment while at work.
She noted that the worker had informed management from the morning that she was unwell and wished to go to hospital, but had been refused permission because she had not met her production target for the day. The worker was eventually admitted to hospital later that day but died shortly afterwards.
This demonstrates that while some incidents become public, many similar cases remain unreported because unions will only publicise them if workers consent.
Commenting on the legal framework, Arulingam said Sri Lanka already had labour laws that protected workers, but noted several important gaps.
“We do not have a workplace anti-harassment law in Sri Lanka. We also do not have a specific occupational health and safety law, despite a draft pending since 2007. These are two fundamental laws to protect the health and well-being of workers, but neither has been passed. In addition, we do not have adequate protection for unions, and the Labour Department does not have the resources to identify daily workplace abuses,” she said.
In addition to concerns surrounding protection mechanisms in place, another important factor is employees’ awareness of their own rights and protections.
Arulingam highlighted the need to improve workers’ awareness of their rights, noting that some employees were still unaware of their legal entitlements, including overtime payments. Noting a recent case, she said that workers at one factory had not received the correct overtime payments because they had not known how overtime should be calculated or that it was unlawful for employers to require overtime without paying the appropriate wages.
However, Arulingam emphasised that awareness alone would not be enough if workers had no effective way to seek redress.
“If workers are told they have rights under the law, but when they go to the Labour Department or the implementing authorities those authorities are not willing to take action, then there is no point in having awareness alone. Awareness is important, but the structural problems also have to be addressed,” she stressed.
Legal frameworks and enforcement
Discussing labour economics, University of Colombo (UOC) Department of Economics Professor Shashithanganee Weerawansa told The Sunday Morning that Sri Lanka had one of the most comprehensive labour law frameworks among developing countries. However, she noted that the challenge was not in the absence of laws but in their implementation, enforcement, and public awareness.
Employees in the formal private sector are protected under numerous laws, including the Shop and Office Employees Act, Wages Boards Ordinance, Industrial Disputes Act, Termination of Employment of Workmen Act, Factories Ordinance, EPF Act, ETF Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, National Minimum Wage of Workers Act, Maternity Benefits Ordinance, and legislation relating to the employment of women, young persons, and children.
These laws regulate working hours, overtime, minimum wages, annual and casual leave, maternity benefits, occupational safety, provident fund contributions, termination procedures, trade union rights, and industrial dispute resolution.
“From a legislative perspective, Sri Lanka is not lacking in labour laws. The issue is whether these laws are effectively enforced across all sectors, whether employers are willing and know how to comply with them, and whether employees know their rights,” she said.
Prof. Weerawansa also pointed out that labour disputes placed employees at a disadvantage because litigation was costly and employers generally had greater access to legal representation. She explained that while Sri Lanka’s legal framework was based on the principles of a welfare state, with laws primarily intended to protect employees while also safeguarding employers’ rights in certain circumstances, practical implementation remained the main concern.
Addressing monitoring mechanisms, she acknowledged that the Government could not inspect every workplace and said that labour regulation functioned best through the combined efforts of Government inspectors, employers, trade unions, and employees themselves. She noted that although the Department of Labour investigated complaints and conducted inspections, its effectiveness was constrained by practical limitations.
“There are thousands of workplaces across the country, but the number of labour inspectors is comparatively small. Routine inspections simply cannot cover every establishment regularly. At the same time, nearly half of Sri Lanka’s workforce is engaged in informal employment, including small businesses, domestic work, agriculture, gig economy jobs, and freelance work. Although legal protections exist, many of these workers remain outside effective labour regulation.”
She added that fear of retaliation was another reason many workers hesitated to report workplace violations, as many employees feared dismissal, transfers, loss of promotions, workplace harassment, or being labelled as troublemakers, which was particularly common among young employees and contract workers.
Prof. Weerawansa also explained that even where legal remedies were available, disputes may take months or years to conclude, adding that the lengthy procedures and associated costs discouraged many workers from seeking justice.
Referring to recent findings, she noted Amnesty International’s 2026 report on workers employed in privately owned tea estates in southern Sri Lanka, which documented allegations of intimidation, debt bondage, withheld wages, poor living conditions, restrictions on movement, and practices that may amount to forced labour. She said the report brought back to light the national discussion on labour rights in vulnerable sectors and demonstrated that legislation alone was not enough without proper enforcement and accountability.
Prof. Weerawansa also highlighted the importance of changing workplace attitudes, noting that employers and employees should recognise that their relationship was mutually beneficial and that exploitation ultimately harmed both parties.
For example, she pointed to Henry Ford’s decision to increase wages and reduce working hours, explaining that it was a business strategy aimed at reducing labour turnover and absenteeism while improving productivity. Meanwhile, she also noted the Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh in 2013 and the Tazreen Fashions factory fire in 2012 as examples of the devastating consequences that could result when workplace safety was neglected.
Moreover, commenting on available legal mechanisms, Prof. Weerawansa said that Sri Lanka had several formal mechanisms through which employees could seek redress.
She explained that employees could lodge complaints with the Department of Labour regarding unpaid wages, EPF and ETF violations, overtime payments, maternity rights, leave entitlements, and unlawful termination. Workers who believe they have been unfairly dismissed may also seek relief through the Labour Tribunal, which can order reinstatement, compensation, or back wages depending on the circumstances. Trade unions can pursue industrial disputes through conciliation, arbitration, and industrial court proceedings, while constitutional or administrative remedies may also be available in exceptional cases.
“Although these mechanisms exist, accessibility is a problem. Employees still face legal complexities, procedural delays, financial costs, lack of legal knowledge, and fear of employer retaliation. The effectiveness of these mechanisms depends on practical accessibility,” she added.
Prof. Weerawansa noted that while Labour Tribunals were expected to issue orders within four months under the Industrial Disputes Act, this target was rarely achieved in practice. High caseloads, complex cases, procedural delays, adjournments, and appeals usually extend proceedings, with some disputes taking several years to conclude.
With respect to employee awareness, she said that knowledge of labour rights varied considerably across different sectors, noting that employees working in large companies, multinational corporations, leading apparel companies, banks, and listed companies generally received HR orientation programmes, employee handbooks, grievance procedures, and compliance training, making them more aware of their rights.
However, she said that awareness was considerably lower among workers in SMEs, plantations, informal employment, domestic work, and parts of the service sector.
“Temporary employees are entitled to the same benefits under laws such as the ETF Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, and the Termination of Employment of Workmen Act. Moreover, apprentices and interns are recognised as workmen under Sri Lankan law and should receive an allowance during their internship/training period.”
Prof. Weerawansa therefore emphasised that improving awareness should be a shared responsibility.
“Labour rights education should become a shared responsibility of universities, employers, trade unions, and Government agencies. Sri Lanka has a well-established labour law framework that provides important legal protection for employees. However, legislation alone cannot create decent workplaces. The challenge is in effective enforcement, timely resolution of disputes, greater awareness of both rights and responsibilities, and building workplaces based on fairness, mutual respect, integrity, and accountability.”