Interim Report - REPORT_NO160, March 1977

1. 276. The complaint of the Chittaranjan Locomotive works Labour Union is contained in a communication dated 11 November 1975. The complainant submitted additional information in letters dated 5 and 11 January 1976. The Government forwarded its observations in communications dated 10 and 17 February and 4 May 1976.
2. 277. India has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• The complainants' allegations
  278. 278 In their letter dated 11 November 1975 the complainants alleged that for the last few years suppression of freedom of association had continued unabated in the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works which comes under the Railway Ministry and that this suppression had been further increased since 21 June 1975. They alleged that in spite of several protests trade union officials and executives had been the objects of attacks by anti-social elements, the local Railways Administration and the Government, so that the union could not even function. The complainants referred in this regard to a report it had submitted to the Railway Minister, a copy of which was attached to the complaint.
  279. 279 According to this report the whole atmosphere in Chittaranjan township had become intolerable and the workers had doubts as to whether there was any administrative control existing at all at the locomotive works. The workers could not organise in their own trade unions or elect their representatives and they could not even appeal to the authorities. All their trade union rights and even their lives were at stake and controlled by a handful of rowdies (goondas), police and Civil and Railway Authorities. Besides murder, arson, looting of trade union leaders' houses and mass arrests of elected representatives and trade union officials from 21 and 22 June 1975, the situation had been steadily deteriorating. The complainants described at length the climate of terror that reigned during the Area Committee election held on 28 September 1975. All sorts of irregularities were committed (threats, assault, interference by goondas, manipulations, etc.) but complaints lodged with the authorities proved to be fruitless. Even the elected members of the Central Staff Council were not permitted to meet the responsible authorities. The workers called for the election results to be declared null and void. In addition, the elected members of the Area Committees were said to have been threatened (forced to submit their resignations) and there had been irregularities in the election of the Vice-Warden and various subcommittees. The complainants feared that the workers would have no right even to perform their social functions and went on to describe incidents that had occurred in connection with the Puja celebrations.
  280. 280 During the visit of the Railway Minister in September 1975 - added this report - a memorandum had been drawn up for submission by the elected representatives of the Central Staff Council but the customary permission to meet the Minister was not granted whereas two groups of the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC), which does not represent the majority of the workers, had been allowed to meet him.
  281. 281 It was also alleged that sixteen persons, including the President, the General-Secretary and other officials of the union had been arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act on concocted grounds and that many more were threatened with the same thing. Many workers were said to have been arrested on fabricated charges, and dismissed.
  282. 282 In its communication dated 5 January 1976, the complainants listed the following acts of violence, the authors of which, they said, had not been arrested: the ransacking and burning on 21 June 1975 of the houses of Dilip Kumar Bose and S.R. Das, Vice-President and General-Secretary of the Union (the complainants attached a copy of a judicial order dated 22 November 1975, inferring inactiveness on the part of the police to hold proper investigations and directing that a proper and thorough investigation be held again in this case); the murder on 22 June 1975 of Mihir Kumar Dey, one of the vice-Presidents of the Union; the throwing of bombs on 21 October 1975 to terrorise the workers who assembled in the evening in a central place in Area No. 6 to read newspapers and exchange opinions.
  283. 283 The complainants also stated that even after 5 or 6 months workers had been dismissed because of the general strike on 20 June 1975 throughout West Bengal ("Bengal Bandh") and that social benefits for previous service had been curtailed. Furthermore, added the complainants, some trade union officials and activists who had been transferred to remote places in 1963 for their participation in trade union activities had not yet returned and similar transfer orders issued in 1971-72 had been quashed by the High Court of Calcutta.
  284. 284 The complainants further stated that recognition of the union was still pending and that since the factory started up in 1950 workers had no right to bargain with the administration. In these conditions they had very little scope to organise activities and had no possibility of sending their representatives to the Permanent Negotiating Machinery or to the Joint Consultation Machinery set up by the Government of India for Central Government employees.
  285. 285 In their communication, dated 11 January 1976, the complainants restated several of the previous allegations and referred in this context to events dating back to the 1960s and even earlier. The complainants pointed out, in particular, that during the 1974 railway strike 44 permanent employees were dismissed, including almost all of the top officials of the union. Because of an order of the High Court of Calcutta the dismissal orders could not be implemented but the persons concerned nevertheless suffered breaks in their service. After June 1975, added the complainants, the management suspended 23 employees including S.R. Das, General-Secretary of the Union, N.K. Mukherjee, Secretary, R.N. Singh, and Dilip Rose, Vice-President.
  286. 286 The complainants further alleged that many trade union members and activists had been prosecuted or arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. Such actions occurred in particular in 1972 and during the general railway strike in 1974. The complainants added that many arrests were also made in June 1975 and that persons arrested included S.R. Das, General-Secretary of the Union, A.R. Sarkar, Secretary, and R.N. Singh, President (the latter having been released in December 1975 by the Advisory Board). The complainants attached a list of 25 trade unionists arrested since 1972 under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 12 of whom were still in gaol. The complainants again refer to attacks on the officers and active members of the union.
  287. 287 As far as recognition of the union is concerned, the complainants pointed out that the Indian Railway Minister had laid down certain norms in this regard and that according to these, two unions can be recognised at the same time in zonal railways. The complainants added that the union had been seeking recognition for more than 21 years even though it represented the largest number of employees.
• Observations of the Government
  288. 288 In its reply, dated 10 February 1976, the Government stated that the Indian Railways were deemed an essential public utility service as they constituted the life-line of the country's transport system. For ensuring effective and smooth industrial relations and for settlement of disputes arising at the plant level, the railways had set up a Permanent Negotiating Machinery which had been functioning since 1952. There were two major trade union organisations in the railways - the National Federation of Indian Railwaymen and the All India Railwaymen's Federation, both of which were recognised by the railways. These federations also formed part of the Permanent Negotiating Machinery and the Joint Consultation Machinery set up by the Central Government in 1966 at the national level.
  289. 289 The Chittaranjan township, added the Government, had been declared "a protected area". The maintenance of law and order in the township assumed added importance with the declaration of a state of emergency throughout the country on 26 June 1975. Except for a sporadic incident, following the observance of the "Bengal Bandh", which preceded the Emergency, no untoward incidents in the township had been reported. The Government denied that there had been a breakdown of administrative control in the township. It stated that rowdies (goondas) were barred from entry into Chittaranjan and that peaceful conditions prevailed there. Furthermore, elected staff councils were functioning in the locomotive works and there was unimpeded freedom for the staff to submit individual representations to the railway authorities.
  290. 290 With regard to the events that occurred on 20 June 1975, the Government referred to a letter it had sent on 19 November 1975 in connection with Case No. 6951 in which the Government pointed out that the incidents were triggered off by the wanton killing of B.N. Singh, President of the Chittaranjan Congress Party by supporters of the Communist Party (Marxists). Mr. Singh was leading a peaceful procession against the "bandh" call given by the leftist parties when he was brutally assaulted and injured; he succumbed to his injuries later. As a retaliatory measure, the vice-President of the complainant union (affiliated to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) - M. Mihir Dey, was killed on 22 June 1975. Taking prompt action, the law and order authorities, added the Government, imposed a ban, under section 144 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code, on the assembly of five or more persons and a dusk-to-dawn curfew in the township on 22 and 23 June 1975. Peace was eventually restored but no complaints, connected with the incident, were lodged with the police. In connection with Mr. Singh's death, 47 persons were arrested, including S.R. Das of the CITU, who was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act for acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and Dalip Bose, who was subsequently released on bail by the Court. The Government declared that these measures could in no circumstances be likened to murders, burning and ransacking of trade union leaders' houses as the complainants had alleged.
  291. 291 In the Chittaranjan area, the Government added, there were seven Area Committees which were run on Panchayat lines and which contributed to promoting a healthy development of community life. These Committees' welfare activities were financed, and to a large extent supported, by subsidies from the Railway Administration Staff Welfare Fund. The members of these Committees were elected under the most democratic procedures. The Government stressed the fact that these elections were carried out in a peaceful and orderly manner with no untoward incidents, and in strict accordance with the Rules. The Government explained in detail the guarantees provided by the Rules and applied during these elections. It pointed out that not a single complaint was received or irregularity detected and that the police had made adequate arrangements for preventing any possible recourse to violence or the use of "goondas". These false allegations, it added, revealed the sense of frustration on the part of the union for not having succeeded in the elections, and at there being no reason for declaring them null and void. Likewise, there had not been a single case of resignation of any of the elected members of the Area Committees or of violation in the observance of the Rules in connection with the elections of the Vice-Warden and subcommittees. Furthermore, as the Railway Administration had set apart funds for utilisation by the Area Committees for the pursuit of welfare activities, the complainants' allegation of deprivation of their rights to perform their social function was devoid of any substance. The Government also explained that no irregularities had been committed in connection with the preparations for the "Puja" celebrations.
  292. 292 The Government also denied that there was any discrimination between the trade unions as the complainants had alleged. The workers who sought the Railway Minister's intervention were allowed the opportunity to do so at the time of his visit on 20 October 1975. According to the Government, the allegation that the law and order position in a protected area such as the township was deteriorating was without any basis and the undue alarm and concern over the pursuit of trade union activities expressed by the complainants was unwarranted since the workers had their own elected representatives in the Staff Councils, which were functioning efficiently. The Railway Administration, it added, could hardly be expected to condone or acquiesce in any subterfuge attempts on the part of disgruntled elements in the factory to bring to a standstill the wheels of production. If any of the workers indulged in unlawful activities, they were naturally liable to be apprehended and the Railway Administration could not interfere in the enforcement of law and order by the responsible authorities.
  293. 293 The question of the recruiting of "rowdies" to disturb the peace in the township did not arise in the Government's view. Since the declaration of the state of emergency in June 1975, peace and tranquillity prevailed in the township and there had been a distinct improvement in discipline and the general law and order situations. The allegation of harassment of trade unionists and their leaders was also not substantiated, added the Government. The representatives elected to the different Area Committees in the township had been accorded full freedom in the pursuit of normal and lawful trade union activities and there was good discipline in the workshops.
  294. 294 In its second communication the Government referred to the latest letter from the complainants, pointing out that the incidents reported therein date back to 1962. It considered that these events were not at all relevant to the complaints submitted earlier and that, under the established procedure, the complainants should submit further information in substantiation of their complaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the original complaint. It also considered that the manner in which the complainants had made omnibus allegations made it almost impossible for the Government to offer detailed observations on the numerous incidents and events listed which spanned a period of over a decade. In the circumstances, the Government suggested that the latest complaint(s) received, which were not specific and which only referred to incidents relating to past years, should be treated as irreceivable.
  295. 295 In its communication dated 4 May 1976, the Government referred to its previous observations on the subject of the events that occurred on 20 June 1975.1 It added that all cases of the absentee staff who applied for leave on 20 June 1976, the day of the "Bengal Bandh", had been considered by the Railway Administration authorities and dealt with purely on their merits out of 1,135 staff members who remained absent, leave was granted in respect of 351 persons whose explanations for the absence were accepted and the period regularised.
  296. 296 The Government declared also that the transfers of four workers from the Chittaranjan Works had been decided mainly for administrative exigencies and not motivated in any way by considerations of trade union activities. It specified that the township in which the works were situated had been declared a "protected area" under a notification issued by the Government of West Bengal under section 6 of the West Bengal Maintenance of Public order Act of 1970 and it attached a copy of the notification and extracts from that Act.
  297. 297 As far as recognition of the complainant union is concerned, the Government pointed out that it was not its policy to recognise any trade union in the production units of the Railways. However, it added, the staff of the works were not prevented from presenting demands and getting their grievances redressed. To put forward their individual grievances, the employees of the Chittaranjan works were permitted to meet the General Manager and the Heads of Departments, for which purpose specific days were allotted. Besides, matters relating to the service conditions and other facilities could also be taken up by the Staff Council which was functioning effectively at the Chittaranjan Works. Finally, the two federations recognised by the Railways, viz. the All India Railwaymen's Federation and the National Federation of Indian Railwaymen also took up grievances of the staff in the meetings of the Permanent Negotiating Machinery at the Railway Board level.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  • (a) Preliminary considerations
    298. 298 The Committee observes that the latest communication from the complainants refers to events which occurred either a long time ago, or in connection with the railway strike of 1974, or to events which had already been described in detail in its two previous communications. As far as the first type of events is concerned, the Committee has already pointed out that, while no formal rules fixing any particular period of prescription are embodied in the procedure for the examination of complaints by the Committee, it may be difficult if not impossible for a Government to reply in detail to allegations regarding matters which occurred a long time ago. The complainants have not provided a satisfactory explanation for such a long delay in submitting these allegations concerning incidents, some of which it admits, moreover, have been settled, and the Committee considers as a result that it would be particularly difficult to appraise the worth of these allegations. In addition, the allegations relating to the railwaymen's strike in 1974 do not provide any new elements compared with those already examined by the Committee within the framework of Case No. 793 in regard to which it has already submitted its conclusions. As for the other allegations contained in the complainants' letter dated 11 January 1976, they are simply a restatement of those which the complainants have already submitted in their previous communications.
    299. 299 The Committee also notes that the allegations relating to the elections of the Area Committees in Chittaranjan township and the religious Puja celebrations mainly deal with events connected to the organisation and life of this township and do not appear to have any direct connection with trade union rights.
    300. 300 In these circumstances, the Committee only proposes to examine the allegations concerning the events which followed the strike of 20 June 1975 and those relating to the discrimination exercised against the complainant union and, in particular, its non-recognition.
  • b) The Committee's conclusions on the allegations examined
    301. 301 Regarding the question of the recognition of the complainant union for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Committee observes that the problems which arise in this case concern the level at which bargaining should be carried out and the trade unions which should be recognised for this purpose. In the present circumstances, all matters relating to wages and conditions of work are examined at the national level and the Government refers in this regard to the Permanent Negotiating Machinery established in 1952 in the Railways (in agreement with the two national trade union federations in this sector) as well as to the Joint Consultation Machinery established in 1966 for all Central Government employees including railwaymen. The Committee has already pointed out on previous occasions that public administrations have the right to decide whether they will negotiate at the national or regional level. Although the Committee has added that the workers should be entitled to choose the organisation which shall represent them in their negotiations, whether negotiating at the regional or national level, it was a question in these cases of enabling a trade union organisation of a higher level to participate in negotiations at the local level. In the case in point, the situation is the reverse since the complainant organisation is a local trade union and negotiations are carried out at the national level. The Committee has on several occasions in the pasta considered that employers, including public authorities in their capacity as employers, should recognise for collective bargaining purposes the organisations' representative of the workers employed by them. In the present case, the Committee notes the existence of two national federations of railwaymen's trade union organisations - the All India Railwaymen's Federation and the National Federation of Indian Railwaymen - and that they have been recognised. It adds finally that at the level of the workplace, the councils elected by the staff can take up matters relating to the service conditions and other facilities.
    302. 302 As regards the events connected with the work stoppage on 20 June 1975, the Committee observes that allegations relating to the same subject have been submitted, together with many others, by the CITU within the framework of Case No. 695. The Government had not replied specifically to these allegations. The Committee had presented definitive conclusions in its 153rd Report, on this case as a whole and the Governing Body had approved these at its 198th Session (18-21 November 1975). The Government communicated further information regarding this point in a letter dated 19 November 1975, which arrived after that Session of the Governing Body, as well as in its communication of 10 February 1976 relating to the present case.
    303. 303 The Committee notes that the arrest of S.R. Das and his colleagues under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act followed the killing of B.N. Singh, President of the Chittaranjan Block Congress, but that, on the other hand, the killing of Mihir Kumar Dey, vice-President of the complainant union, and the incidents which occurred at the same time do not appear to have been cleared up yet. The complainants also allege that dismissals were carried out following the strike of 20 June 1975 and the Government merely points out in this regard that, purely on the merits of their cases, leave was granted to some workers for the day in question, and that their situation was accordingly regularised.