Interim Report - REPORT_NO214, March 1982

1. 522. By a communication dated 15 July 1981, the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights in India; it sent further information and allegations in communications dated 6 September, 9 November and 29 December 1981. The Government communicated its reply to some of the allegations it letters of 2 November 1981 and 28 January 1982, stating that the observations on the remaining allegations will be sent as soon as possible.
2. 523. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the light to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), nor the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 524. In its letter of 15 July 1981, the CITU alleges antiunion discrimination on the part of the management against the tea plantation workers in the State of Assam through such action as torture, unjustified dismissal, destruction of houses and property of trade unionists and sexual harassment of the wives of union leaders. It also claims that the Plantation Labour (Amendment) Bill, introduced in Parliament in 1973 to improve the working conditions of estate workers has remained "frozen".
2. 525. According to the CITU, the repression commenced during the 12 October 1980 strike at the Krishnakali Tea Estate where the manager terrorised striking workers with a gun, seriously injuring Shri Benja Lobar with his gun-butt. Later that night, when the workers gathered at the management office in protest, armed police arrived and started indiscriminate shooting resulting in the injury of Shri Budram Munda and Kumari Birsi Oraon. No judicial inquiry has been held concerning these incidents despite such a request by one of the CITU's affiliate unions in the tea sector. The CITU states that on 3 March 1981, 29 workers, including Shri Nihal Oraon, president of one of its affiliate unions in the tea sector, were illegally dismissed without the prior permission required by the industrial Disputes Act. It alleges that this action violates the workers' Representatives Convention, No. 135. Shri Oraon was allegedly arrested by the police three weeks later, severely beaten in the manager's bungalow and jailed. His wife was allegedly molested. A few days later Shir Narayan Bhakat, secretary of the same CITU affiliate, Shri Luise Orang, Lohra Sikbaraik and his son Jitnath and Phulsing Orang were arrested, tortured in the manager's bungalow and jailed. The president of the CITU affiliate at the neighbouring Chapar Tea Estate, Shri Phulsing Sikbaraik, and his brother Suyamsundar were also allegedly severely beaten by the police on the same night, the latter's wife being molested at the same time. The CITU alleges that on 20 May 1981 the manager attempted to rape Shri Oraon's wife, and on 11 June his house and belongings were burnt down by the management's hirelings. The complainant cites further examples of beatings and sexual harassment of workers and their supporters without specifying whether they were trade unionists. It claims that these various actions prove collusion between the police and the management.
3. 526. The complainant alleges that during the torture of the workers, the police, the manager and his hirelings repeatedly asked them to leave the CITU affiliate union and return to the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC)-led union, which had previously been the only union on the tea estates and which has the direct patronage of the plantation owners. In its effort to crush the new unions, continues the CITU, the management of the Krishnakali Estate has instigated a number of false cases against its affiliate's officials so as to disrupt their normal functioning.
4. 527. According to the complainant, the same sort of incidents occurred at the Nagrijuli Tea Estate: e.g. police firing on workers; interference in the normal activities of the CITU affiliate union; arrest, beating and imprisonment of five workers during a membership drive. The rival INTUC affiliate union was also allegedly involved in repression on this estate: on 20 March 1981 one of its members, with police aid, held three named CITU affiliate union leaders in illegal confinement for ten days in the police camp on that estate, where they were beaten and tortured.
5. 528. In its letter of 6 September 1981, the CITU states that the burnt houses of Shri Oraon and others have not been rebuilt by the management or the Government. It attaches lists of 29 permanent workers and 69 temporary workers, including office bearers and executive members of its affiliate union in the tea sector, who have been dismissed in violation of Convention No. 135. According to its communication of 9 November 1981, one tea garden worker was killed in the Titabar police lockup and two killed and many injured during police firing at another tea estate. Apparently further houses of workers on the Krishnakali Tea Estate have been burnt down and a team of members of the Legislative Assembly visiting the Nagrijuli Tea Estate was allegedly attacked. The complainant's communication of 29 December 1981 gives further details concerning the allegations transmitted on 9 November including a copy of an appeal made in this connection to the Prime minister.

B. The Government's reply

1. 529. Firstly, the Government states that the Plantations Labour (Amendment) Bill was referred in 1973 by the Upper House to a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That joint Committee's report was presented to the Upper House in 1975 and its recommendations were considered by the Government and the necessary official amendments finalised. Although the amending Bill was passed by the Upper House in September 1981, it could not be considered by the Lower House because of other urgent legislative work. The Government denies that an infringement of trade union rights is involved.
2. 530. According to the Government, the allegation that the INTUC-led tea estate union is patronised by the plantation owners is too general and vague. On the contrary, it claims that the trade union in question continues to enjoy the majority support of the tea plantation workers. This is proven by the 1980 annual figures submitted to the State registrar of Trade Unions by the unions: the INTUC affiliate had a membership of 161,000 and the CITU affiliate mentioned in the complaint only had 10,921 members. It claims that the alleged coercion by beatings to force workers to leave the CITU affiliate are general allegations not calling for special comments.
3. 531. With reference to the alleged anti-union incidents in October 1980, the Government claims that the strike in question was accompanied by such coercion and violence that the manager of the Krishnakali Tea Estate was forced to inform the police authorities when the police party and the accompanying magistrate were attacked by the agitated workers, the magistrate declared the assembly unlawful, ordered the use of tear gas, and, when this proved ineffective, ordered the police to open fire with due warning to disperse the mob. It claims that only two persons sustained minor bullet injuries. St adds that the allegation that the manager used a weapon was found to be baseless on inquiry as the medical report on the injury suffered by the worker in question eliminated any such possibility.
4. 532. As regards the March 1981 incidents, the Government states that the reference to Convention No. 135 is irrelevant as India has not ratified it. It adds that Mr. Nihal Oraon and another two workmen were dismissed for gross misconduct under the provisions of the certified Standing Orders of the company on 3 July 1978 and not in 1981. The 29 workers dismissed in March 1981 were so treated after the management had sought the approval of the labour Court as required under the industrial Disputes Act. According to the Government, the applications for approval are still pending with the Labour Court.
5. 533. In its communication of 28 January 1982, the Government points out that as Mr. Oraon was no longer employed at the tea estate anal as his house was outside the garden grant, the management was under no obligation to reconstruct his house when it burnt down. As for the other burnt habitations, the Government states that in two cases casual workers were- concerned towards whom the management has no legal obligation to provide housing, and the third case again concerned a person no longer employed at the tea estate. It further points out that the 29 permanent workers were dismissed for riotous conduct and assault under the tea estate Standing orders and that the 69 casual workers listed by the complainant were not allowed to work for the same offence. It claims that the permanent workers were informed of the charges against them but did not avail themselves of the opportunity to take part - either personally or through their union - in the hearings.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 534. This case concerns allegations of anti-union discrimination aimed at unionised tea plantation workers in an effort by management, aided by the police, to repress the complainant's affiliate trade union in favour of the management-backed union. The complainant also alleges that certain legislation to improve the working conditions of plantation employees has been "frozen" in Parliament since 1973.
2. 535. The Committee notes that the complainant refers primarily to violence (shooting, beatings and torture) by the management and police in October 1960 and March 1981, to attempted rape and arson in May and June 1981, to three deaths in November 1981, as well as to illegal dismissals and imprisonment, of trade union leaders. In this connection it notes that the Government does not deny the police shooting which injured two workers, but explains that it was ordered by an assisting magistrate in face of aggression by the workers and only after warnings had been given. Neither does it deny the dismissal of 29 workers, but points out that this was done - on the grounds of riotous conduct and assault - in accordance with the requirements of the industrial Disputes Act, and that the trade union leader allegedly involved, Nihal Oraon, had in fact been dismissed three years beforehand.
3. 536. The Committee would in this respect point out that security of the person is one of the universally accepted civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union activities. Moreover, the Committee has always called for independent judicial inquiries into cases of physical assault against persons which appear to be aimed at disrupting trade union organisations, especially cases where large numbers of trade unionists are involved and where there have been serious injuries or deaths. In the present case the Committee would draw the Government's attention to the above-mentioned principles in the hope that an inquiry into the police action, as requested by the complainant's affiliate, will help to restore the situation to normal. The Committee notes that applications for approval of the dismissals complained of are pending before the Labour Court and asks the Government to inform it of the outcome of these applications.
4. 537. The Committee notes that the Government does not comment on the specific allegations of torture and imprisonment of named unionists, nor on the alleged sexual harassment and deaths referred to by the complainant. However, it recalls the Government's statement that its observations on the outstanding allegations will be sent as soon as possible and hopes to receive them soon.
5. 538. Regarding the allegation that anti-union activity took place aimed at crushing the complainant's affiliate on the tea estates in favour of the management-backed union, the Committee notes that the Government quotes figures to show that the complainant's affiliate union had only a very small following but declines to make special comment on the claim that during beatings the workers were asked to leave the CITU affiliate and join the rival union. Normally, the Committee considers that a matter consisting solely in a conflict within the trade union movement itself is the sole responsibility of the parties themselves. However, a complaint against another organisation, if couched in sufficiently precise terms to be capable of examination on its merits, may bring the government of the country concerned into question, e.g. if the acts of the organisation complained against are wrongfully supported by the government or are of a nature which the government is under a duty to prevent. In the present case, the Committee observes that the complainant provides no detailed evidence to substantiate its allegations and the Government merely denies the allegations in general terms. In these circumstances, the Committee does not possess sufficiently specific informatics, on the basis of which it could usefully continue its examination of this aspect of the case.
6. 539. Lastly, as regards the Plantations Labour (Amendment) Bill, introduced in Parliament in 1973, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the Bill was passed by the Upper House in September 1981 but could not be considered by the Lower House due to pressure of work. Noting that no express allegation of violation of trade union rights attaches to the passage of the Bill, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.