Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission I would reply to Parliamentary Question B/794 and B/810 concurrently as they relate to the same subject matter, that is, alleged discriminatory treatment and dismissal of two employees for wearing hijab in their place of work.

55 I am informed that on 05 June 2025 and 06 June 2025, respectively, Ms M. A. and Ms N. A. who were employed at ENSafrica Mauritius, reported to my Ministry that they were prevented from wearing head scarfs (hijab) at their work place. On 13 June 2025 they were suspended from work and on the same day they registered a complaint at my Ministry as they considered that they had been discriminated on religious grounds. My Ministry convened the representative of ENSafrica Limited Mauritius on 25 June 2025 to secure their version and they informed that there is a dress code which has been well established since the past 30 years and all employees of ENSafrica Limited Mauritius have to officially adhere to same. The dress code is an implied term of their contract of employment. Employees are not allowed to wear anything which is outside the dress code. However, they pointed out that there was no written policy regarding dress code. On 02 July 2025, the aggrieved workers reported the existence of a labour dispute between themselves and ENSafrica Limited Mauritius to the President of the Commission of Mediation and Conciliation under section 64(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2008 on whether they should be allowed to wear head scarfs on their uniform at their workplace. Conciliation meetings were held at the Commission on 07, 11 and 17 July. The workers were present, assisted by their legal counsels. However, ENSafrica did not appear on the three occasions. On 18 July 2025, the Commission informed the workers and the employer that it was of the view that a state of deadlock had been reached and the workers had requested the Commission to refer the matter to the Employment Relations Tribunal. However, on 21 July 2025, the Commission received a letter from ENS Mauritius Limited purported to be dated on 18 July 2025, which was a Saturday, terminating the employment of the two workers. I am informed that on 22 July 2025, the two aggrieved workers registered a complaint at my Ministry to the effect that their employment had been terminated by way of a letter dated 18 July, summarily, allegedly because they had been spreading false and misleading information about ENSafrica Limited which resulted in apparently threats being made to the safety of the members of the firm. The workers requested that they be reinstated back to their post. On 23 July 2025, my Ministry conducted an inquiry at ENSafrica Mauritius and met with Mr Thierry Koenig, Senior Attorney, Director and Mr Maxime Sauzier, Senior Counsel, Chairman among others. The firm is agreeable to pay all dues prescribed by law upon termination of employment but are not agreeable to reinstate the workers.

56 I wish to highlight, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that although one of the reasons of the termination was misconduct, no disciplinary hearing was held for the employees to provide the workers with the opportunity to answer any charge against them. I am also not aware if the employer reported any alleged threat which they apparently had received to the police for inquiry. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 25 July 2025, my Ministry referred the matter to the Employment Relations Tribunal to claim reinstatement of the workers. Concurrently, the application to join the Workfare Programme has been referred to the Ministry of Social Integration, Social Security and National Solidarity for payment of Transition Unemployment Benefit. My Ministry has been informed by the Equal Opportunities Commission that Ms N. A and Ms M. A. also lodged individual complaints against their employers before the Equal Opportunities Commission on 25 and 30 June 2025. Both complainants alleged that they had been discriminated on the basis of their creed as they had been required by their employer to stop wearing their head scarfs at their place of work. ENSafrica Mauritius has yet to give their version to the Equal Opportunities Commission. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regards part (b) of the question, relating to similar cases of discrimination, I am informed that since 2022, there have been three cases reported to my Ministry as follows – • On 10 March 2022, a bus conductor reported a case regarding request to have his Sundays off to attend church services; • On 03 April 2023, an educator of Muslim faith complained that he was denied access to his workplace because of his beard, and • On 01 July 2025, the Private Enterprise Employees Union reported a dispute to the effect that employees of the National Social Inclusion Foundation were not being allowed to display any religious symbols on their office tables. Following the intervention of my Ministry, the first two cases have been resolved to the satisfaction of the workers and the third case is still under mediation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, discrimination of workers cannot be tolerated in a plural society like Mauritius. Section 11 of the Constitution guarantees a citizen’s right to practice his religion

57 and section 16 of the Constitution protects every citizen against discrimination including on the basis of creed and religion. Section 5 of the he Worker's Rights Act 2019, very clearly provides that – “No employer shall treat, in a discriminatory manner, any worker who is in his employment.” The definition of “discrimination” includes affording different treatment to workers attributable, wholly or mainly, to their creed or religion. Moreover, Section 64 of the Worker's Rights Act 2019, further provides that an employment cannot be terminated by an employer by reason of a worker’s race, colour, caste or religion. Let me reassure the House that this matter is being taken very seriously as highlighted in the report of Cabinet Decision of 25 July 2025 – “Cabinet has taken note, with concern, of the case […] The possibility of action being taken against the law firm is being examined.” My Ministry is in consultation with the Attorney General’s office, working towards the reinforcement of labour legislations to prevent violation of the human rights of workers including such cases of discrimination.

Yes, you have one supplementary?

Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, taking into account that there are many cases that are not reported due to fear of being dismissed from work, will the hon. Minister and his Ministry consider embarking on a national campaign to inform workers of this country that they cannot be discriminated on the basis of caste, religion or religious belief? And, also to inform those employers who are perpetrating discrimination that this cannot continue in this democratic country.

I thank the hon. Member for this very valuable suggestion. We will consider with officers of my Ministry whether, to have this national campaign in MBC TV, through the media and the press.

Yes, you have one supplementary?

Yes, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

58 May I ask the hon. Minister, given that section 5 is an offence punishable under section 123 by Criminal Punishment as the hon. Minister knows well, why has an interview not been conducted with ENSafrica under potential violation of section 5; the more so that the parent- company features on its website, at least five persons wearing hijab and, therefore, it suggests that this is not a global policy but one which is local? So, why has there not been any action under section 123?

The hon. Member will be happy to note that my Ministry has already referred the matter to DPP for an advice, specifically on whether section 5 of the Worker’s Rights Act has been breached and what legal action can be taken against ENSafrica in Mauritius. We are awaiting the advice of the DPP’s office. With regard to ENSafrica, my Ministry wrote to them officially to report this dispute and to ask whether, there was any dress code imposed by ENSafrica in South Africa and the answer was no. I personally spoke to the Director of ENS South Africa. They are taking this very seriously and we are still hoping that, ENS Mauritius will come to better terms and reinstate these workers.

You have another one?

Yes.

Okay, quickly!

Now, with regard to the course of action that has been taken by the Ministry, that is, for reinstatement, as it is now doubtful that the bond of trust that existed between employer and employee still exists or will be able to resuscitated in the future, is the hon. Minister agreeable that this is the right time to make an example out of this sort of practice? Even if section 123 has not been utilised in the past, he should ensure that this time, an example is made.

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. That is why Cabinet took the decision to refer the matter to the Attorney General for advice as to what action can be taken against the law firm and also to consider whether, we need to make any amendment to our law. I understand you are referring to the provisions of the ERT with regard to reinstatement whether, it is the breakdown of relationship. All this is being looked into by the Attorney General’s

59 office and we will come with necessary amendments if it is required to reinforce the right of every citizen of this country to dress in accordance with their religious belief.

Okay. The hon. Fourth Member for Rodrigues. FINANCIAL YEAR 2025-26 – FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE SCHEMES – ARTISTS’ ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA