Definitive Report - REPORT_NO177, June 1978

1. 26. The National Workers' Federation of Bangladesh (Jatiya Sramik Federation) presented its complaint in a communication dated 13 June 1975. Further information in support of the complaint was received from the complainant organisation on 20 June and 12 August 1975. The complaint and the further information received were transmitted to the Government of Bangladesh for observations.
2. 27. On 20 October 1975, the complainant organisation formally requested the Committee to keep the case in abeyance meantime in view of the political changes that had taken place in Bangladesh and the effect of these changes on the exercise of trade union rights. At its session in November 1975, the Committee requested the complainant organisation to inform it in due course whether it wished the case to be examined further or withdrawn, and to give reasons for its decision. This request was repeated by the Committee at each of its meetings up to November 1977 when the Committee, noting that no confirmation had been received from the complainants, again requested the Government to transmit its observations on the complaint, The complainant organisation, in a communication dated 10 December 1977, confirmed that it did not wish the case to be examined further by the Committee.
3. 28. Bangladesh has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Summary of the allegations
  29. 29 In their communication of 13 June 1975 the complainants described the arbitrary imprisonment of a number of trade unionists without trial, and the dismissal of many employees and trade unionists including members of the complainant organisation that had taken place in 1972 following the promulgation of certain Presidential Orders (Nos. 8 and 9 of 1972). In particular, the complainants described the situation in the Dacca Match Factory where, in early 1972, the entire union executive and 400 members of the union had been driven out of employment and the union office occupied by the official government union. There was also the example, continued the complainants, of the Bangladesh Industrial Development Corporation where the Government, by an executive order, had cancelled, in April 1972, a lawful agreement between the BIDC and the BIDC Workers' Federation. As a result of protests against this action, several members of the BIDC Workers' Federation were dismissed. Other examples of the Government's allegedly repressive labour policy and the denial of the right to strike were given by the complainants.
  30. 30 The complainants further alleged that, in 1973, over 200 workers and leading members of the union in the RR Jute Mills (Chittagong) were killed by a semi-official army squad under the command of the ruling party leader. According to the complainants, similar killings had taken place in other mills and factories across the country. For example, stated the complainants, the general secretary of the National Jute Mills Workers' Union, Ghorashal, and the publicity secretary of the Jatiya Sramik Federation were both killed by armed squads. Further, according to the complainants, an Ordinance No. 23 was promulgated in November 1973 which declared null and void all agreements, settlements, etc., and effectively put an end to collective bargaining in Bangladesh.
  31. 31 In 1974, the complainants added, repression of trade union activities continued and thousands of trade union activists were imprisoned under the Special Powers Act, 1974. A state of emergency was proclaimed on 28 December 1974 and, by virtue of the Emergency Powers Ordinance, the functions of the courts as well as all Constitutional rights were suspended.
  32. 32 On 7 January 1975 the right of 82 per cent of all the workers in the country to become members of trade unions was abolished and meetings, processions, demonstrations, etc., banned. In addition, continued the complainants, there were further killings and over 5,000 trade union militants dismissed from their employment in various industries. Finally, added the complainants, the Government dissolved all national trade union organisations except its own official trade union front, the Jatiya Sramik League, to which the Government gave direct support. The complainants described a number of specific situations in which the trade unions which supported the ruling party were favoured whereas members of those unions affiliated to the Jatiya Sramik Federation were being murdered, arrested or dismissed.
  33. 33 By its communication, received on 20 June 1975, the complainant organisation submitted further information and documentation in support of its allegations concerning trade union repression, including the ban on strikes, the killing of trade unionists and the dismissal of the general secretary of the Jatiya Sramik Federation.
  34. 34 In a further communication received on 12 August 1975 the complainant organisation submitted documentation indicating that it (the JSF) had been banned and illustrating the manner in which its members were being victimised throughout the country.
• Complainant's request to terminate the examination of the complaint
  35. 35 In a communication dated 20 October 1975 the complainant organisation stated that President Khandakar Mustague Ahmad of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, in his recent address to the nation, had announced the firm commitment of his Government to restore normal democratic life by 15 August 1976 and hold a general election by early 1977. Further, added the complainants, it seemed that after the recent changes in Government, there had been no state interference in basic trade union activities. In these circumstances, the complainants requested that the examination of the case be kept in abeyance until further notice.
  36. 36 The complainant organisation, in a communication dated 10 December 1977, indicated that, since the Government was now discussing with in the restoration of trade union rights, it did not wish the case examined further by the Committee.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  37. 37 In previous cases in which the Committee has been confronted with a request submitted to it for the withdrawal of a complaint, it has considered that the desire expressed by an organisation which has submitted a complaint to withdraw this complaint constitutes an element of which full account should be taken, but it is not sufficient in itself for the Committee to automatically cease to proceed further with the case.
  38. 38 In such cases the Committee has been guided by the principle laid down by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938 in cases submitted respectively by the Madras Labour Union of Textile workers and by the Société de Bienfaisance des Travailleurs de Isle Maurice in conformity with Article 23 (now Article 24) of the Constitution of the ILO, namely that once a representation has been submitted to it, it alone was competent to decide what effect should be given to it and that "the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well-founded".
  39. 39 Acting on the basis of this principle, the Committee has decided that it alone is competent to evaluate in full freedom the reasons put forward to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to endeavour to establish whether these appear to be sufficiently plausible so that it may be concluded that the withdrawal is being made in full independence. In this connection, the Committee had noted that there might be cases in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it was the result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal.
  40. 40 In the present case the Committee has taken account of the fact that the complainant organisation has had the question of the withdrawal of its complaint under consideration since 20 October 1975. The Committee has also taken account of the fact that the allegations, although very serious in character, relate mainly to the period between 1972 and 1975, since which time there have been important political changes in the country.