Interim Report - REPORT_NO265, June 1989

1. 501. In a communication dated 2 August 1988, the Centre of Indian Trade
   • Unions (CITU) presented allegations of violations of trade union rights
   • against the Government of India. The Government sent its observations on the
   • case in communications dated 5 September 1988, 28 February 1989, 23 March 1989
2. and 28 March 1989.
3. 502. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the
   • Right to Organisation Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and
   • Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98); it has ratified the Rural
   • Workers' Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 503. The complainant has presented a series of allegations of violations of
2. trade union rights in the State of Tripura. The alleged violations include
3. assaults, murders, arson, rape, false arrests, attacks upon union premises,
4. dismissals and threatened dismissals of union members and the deregistration
5. of trade unions. All of these incidents occurred between February and June
6. 1988, in the aftermath of a change of government in Tripura. According to the
7. complainant, many of the assaults etc. were perpetrated by supporters of the
8. new government - often with the support (active or passive) of the public
9. authorities.
10. 504. The complainant sets out its allegations under 22 headings. They may be
11. summarised as follows:
12. i) On 5 February 1988 the premises of the Motor Shramik Union (MSU) (an
13. affiliate of the CITU) were attacked by "Congress I)anti-socials". The
14. incident was allegedly reported to the police, but no action was taken.
15. (ii) On 6 February 1988 two members of the MSU, Gopal Ghosh and Indrajit
16. Das, were attacked. Gopal Ghosh was murdered and Indrajit Das was severely
17. injured. "Astonishingly" Indrajit Das was arrested by the police.
18. iii) Also on 6 February 1988 the houses of three trade unionists (Anil Das,
19. Madhu Mian and Hiranmoni Bonaj) were set on fire. Mrs. Bonaj and her husband
20. were also dismissed from their employment at the Laxmi Iunga Tea Estate.
21. (iv) On 24 February 1988 Dharma Das, a member of the State Committee of the
22. CITU, and his son, were arrested without a warrant. Dharma Das was allegedly
23. kept naked in police custody and severely beaten up. His home was ransacked in
24. the name of a search, but nothing was found. He was kept in police custody
25. until 14 March 1988, when he was released on his own bond.
26. v) On 25 February 1988 two leaders of the Kailashahar Tea Workers' Union
27. (Bandan Gope and Laxmi Naryan Choun) were arrested on false charges and beaten
28. up while in police custody.
29. (vi) On an unspecified date, the State Secretary of the CITU (Shakti
30. Prasanna Bhattacharya) was attacked in his home by "Congress I)anti-socials".
31. (vii) On unspecified dates in March 1988 the homes of Sridam Sutradhar and
32. Sudarshan Das were set on fire, leaving them and their families homeless.
33. Allegedly, they are also unable to enter their home areas due to a reign of
34. terror created by the "Congress I) anti-socials".
35. (viii) On 1 April 1988 276 members of a CITU affiliate were forcefully
36. prevented from taking up their duties at the Kamalasagar Goatary Farm. Two
37. days later a number of these workers were beaten up. Both of these incidents
38. were reported to the police by a local member of parliament (Shree Motilal
39. Sarkar), but no action was taken against the culprits.
40. (ix) On 6 April 1988 a leader (Abdul Samad) of the daily-rated contract
41. workers at a thermal plant construction site was called to a meeting with the
42. State Home Minister and warned against pressing ahead with a demand for higher
43. wages. Later, Mr. Samad was arrested and severely beaten whilst in police
44. custody.
45. x) On 8 April 1988 the offices of the MSU were attacked and a number of
46. individuals (including Sudhangshu Das) were beaten up. This attack was
47. allegedly carried out by "Congress I) anti-socials", assisted by members of
48. the Central Reserve Police Force and the Police Force.
49. (xi) On 19 April 1988 the leader of the Congress I) party in Tripura (Shree
50. Dhirendra Debnath) visited the Mohanpur Food Godown, accompanied by a number
51. of party workers and members of the police force. He asked a member of the
52. management of the Godown to hire a number of individuals whose names appeared
53. upon a written list. According to the complainant, 18 members of a union
54. affiliated to the CITU were immediately dismissed. The complainant alleges
55. that similar incidents occurred at two other establishments involving the
56. dismissal of a total of 90 workers.
57. (xii) On 6 May 1988 a group of "anti-social elements" entered the Kalshimuk
58. Rubber Plantation Centre and beat up workers at random. A number of workers,
59. including the secretary of the Rubber Shramik Union (RSU) (Rakhal Roy), were
60. hospitalised. Subsequently 38 union members were dismissed and replaced by
61. "Congress I) anti-socials". Allegedly this took place on the instructions of a
62. police officer. The complainant also alleges that the offices of the RSU were
63. ransacked in the presence of the police.
64. (xiii) On 9 May 1988 a number of "hoodlums" are said to have warned Mahendra
65. Debnath to leave a union affiliated to the CITU or else he would be murdered.
66. Some days later Mr. Debnath was murdered, allegedly with the complicity of the
67. State Home Minister. The police registered the case as suicide.
68. (xiv) On 13 May 1988 Suken Tripura, a member of a CITU affiliate, was
69. assaulted by a "Congress I) hoodlum" (Dipak Malla) and was obstructed when he
70. tried to report the matter to the police. Later, Suken Tripura, Suriya
71. Tripura, Harimohan Tripura and Daitiya Mohan Tripura were arrested on
72. informations laid by Dipak Malla. Whilst in police custody, Suriya Tripura was
73. severely tortured. He was eventually brought before a court without having
74. received any medical treatment and received a custodial sentence.
75. (xv) On an unspecified date two CITU leaders, Shyamal Paul and Manik Das,
76. were physically assaulted for having mobilised the workers of the National
77. Projects Construction Corporation to observe May Day. Both Mr. Paul and Mr.
78. Das were hospitalised as a result of their injuries.
79. (xvi) On 20 May 1988 Bharatmani Nayatiya, a leader of the Jute Mills
80. Workers' Union and a member of the State Committee of the CITU, was assaulted
81. by Khokan Paul and a number of associates. He was arrested without charge and
82. subsequently released. Later he was arrested again on a false charge laid by
83. Khokan Paul, tortured by the police, and eventually sent to prison.
84. (xvii) On 26 May 1988 eight workers were allegedly prevented from commencing
85. work at the Paikhlola Rubber Plantation Centre by "Congress I) miscreants". On
86. 31 May 17 workers were similarly obstructed at a different plantation. Around
87. the same time two workers, Atul Debnath and Natu Urang, were physically
88. assaulted by "miscreants". All of these incidents were reported to the police,
89. but no action was taken.
90. (xviii) On 5 June 1988 a police officer and "about 250 Congress
91. I) miscreants" allegedly assaulted two rubber workers' leaders (Dankumar
92. Tripura and Satinanda Tripura).
93. (xix) On 6 June 1988 the same gang assaulted Chikan Tripura, a rubber
94. worker, and then handed him over to the police. Whilst he was in custody he
95. was again assaulted and was released on 7 June. During the time that Mr.
96. Tripura was in custody, the local office of the RSU was captured by members of
97. the gang. They also, with the help of the police, prevented about 185 workers
98. from attending their place of work, with the result that they lost their jobs.
99. (xx) It is alleged that over an unspecified period in 1988 25 offices
100. belonging to CITU affiliates were seized by "anti-socials" - these included 11
101. offices belonging to the MSU. All of these incidents were reported to the
102. police, who had taken no action against those responsible.
103. (xxi) During this same period the registration of eight unions affiliated to
104. the CITU was cancelled either for no valid reason, or for non-submission of
105. Annual Returns (even though all such returns had been submitted and accepted
106. by the Registrar of Trade Unions).
107. (xxii) Between 31 May 1988 and 2 June 1988 it is alleged that seven women
108. workers were gang-raped by soldiers.
109. B. The Government's reply
110. 505. In its communications the Government states that in India freedom of
111. association and trade union rights are secured under national laws - notably
112. the Trade Unions Act 1926 and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The first of
113. these measures deals with such issues as the registration and deregistration
114. of trade unions. The second deals, inter alia, with unfair labour practices
115. such as interfering with, restraining or coercing workers in the exercise of
116. their right to organise, form, join or assist trade unions. It also makes it
117. unlawful to "discharge or dismiss" a worker by way of victimisation. Murders,
118. physical assaults, burning of homes, etc., are criminal acts and as such can
119. be punished in accordance with the Penal Code and associated measures.
120. 506. The Government also affirms that it will continue to ensure that no
121. trade union or federation is harassed by any particular party and that all
122. trade unions and workers' organisations are free to carry on their genuine
123. activities and to enjoy their basic rights.
124. 507. As to the 22 specific allegations made by the complainant, the
125. Government makes the following responses, based upon information provided by
126. the Government of Tripura:
127. i) It is true that there was a demonstration in front of the offices of the
128. MSU on 5 February 1988. This was to protest against the murder of one Bishu
129. Saha by a number of alleged supporters of the Communist Party of India
130. (Marxist). The mob was dispersed by the police and no report was made to the
131. police of any damage to the offices of the MSU.
132. (ii) It is true that Gopal Ghosh and Indrajit Das (together with Dhirendra
133. Deb Darma) were attacked by a mob on 2 February 1988 and that Mr. Ghosh died
134. of his injuries. It is also true that Mr. Das was arrested after the attack.
135. The Government states that the attack was executed by local people who
136. considered that Messrs. Ghosh, Das and Darma had been implicated in the murder
137. of one Nripendra Rudra Paul. The arrest of Mr. Das was in connection with this
138. murder, which is still under investigation. The police are also investigating
139. the death of Mr. Ghosh.
140. (iii) According to the Government it is "strongly suspected" that the fire
141. at the home of Mrs. Bonaj was accidental. It also states that Mrs. Bonaj and
142. her husband left their employment of their own free will. On inquiry, no one
143. named Anil Das or Madhu Mian could be found in the locality.
144. (iv) Dharma Das and Diplak Das were arrested on suspicion of involvement in
145. an offence under section 326/302 of the Penal Code (the nature of which is not
146. stated). They were subsequently discharged by a court of law for want of
147. evidence. The Government denies that either man was kept naked or beaten
148. whilst in police custody. They also deny that the house of Diplak Das was
149. ransacked.
150. (v) The two leaders of the Kailashahar Tea Workers' Union were arrested
151. because of their complicity in the murder of one Haripada Dey. They were not
152. assaulted whilst in police custody
153. (vi) No complaint of an alleged attack upon the Secretary of the State CITU
154. was reported to the police.
155. (vii) It is true that the home of Sridam Sutradhar was gutted by fire on the
156. night of 19 March 1988. Charges were subsequently made against Dipak Malla and
157. others. No such person as Sudarshan Das could be identified upon inquiry. The
158. allegation that there is a reign of terror in the area is "baseless and
159. motivated".
160. (viii) It has not been established on inquiry that 276 workers were
161. prevented from taking up their duties on 1 April 1988, or that some workers
162. were beaten up on 3 April 1988. Shree Motilal Sarkar did not report these
163. incidents to the police.
164. (ix) Abdul Samad was not summoned to a meeting with the State Home Minister
165. on 6 April 1988. He was, however, arrested on that day on a charge of
166. disorderly behaviour in a public place under the influence of liquor. He was
167. subsequently tried and convicted on this charge. He had previously been
168. arrested on various (unspecified) charges under the Penal Code and the Arms
169. Act.
170. (x) The assault on Sudhangshu Das was carried out by dissident elements in
171. his own union. Mr. Das had registered a complaint with the police and the
172. matter is under investigation.
173. (xi) The Government states that all three allegations relating to the
174. dismissal of members of CITU affiliates are without foundation.
175. (xii) Rakhal Roy Burman sustained "simple injuries" in the course of a clash
176. between supporters of two rival unions at the Kalshimukh Rubber Plantation
177. Centre on the morning of 6 May 1988. A number of members of both unions were
178. also injured. Police investigations relating to this incident are pending. The
179. office of the Rubber Shramik Union was not ransacked in the presence of the
180. police. It is also untrue that members of CITU affiliates were dismissed and
181. replaced by Congress I) workers.
182. (xiii) The Government categorically denies t hat Mahendra Debnath was
183. threatened by supporters of Congress (I), or that the State Home Minister had
184. been in any way involved in his death. Police inquiries and a post-mortem
185. examination had established beyond any doubt that Mr. Debnath had committed
186. suicide.
187. (xiv) It is true that Manimohan Tripura and Surjya Tripura were arrested on
188. the complaint of Dipak Malla. Surjya Tripura resisted arrest and sustained a
189. "simple injury", which was treated by a doctor. He was not beaten whilst in
190. police custody. Daitya Tripura was brought to the police station for
191. questioning in relation to the same matters as Manimohan Tripura and Surjya
192. Tripura, but was subsequently released. No complaint was laid with the police
193. in relation to the alleged assault of Sukhen Tripura by Dipak Malla.
194. (xv) Shyamal Paul did lay assault charges against a number of individuals.
195. Following a police investigation, all of these individuals were arrested and
196. charged. The incident occurred in February 1988 and had no connection with the
197. observance of May Day.
198. (xvi) Bharatmoni Notaia was detained by some local people at Melagarh Bazaar
199. with an unlicensed revolver in his possession. He was subsequently handed over
200. to the police and charged with an offence under the Arms Act. He was not
201. assaulted by Khokan Paul and he was not tortured whilst in police custody. He
202. did, however, sustain "some swelling injuries" during a scuffle with the local
203. people who detained him. The allegation that the revolver was "planted" in his
204. bag by Khokan Paul was not substantiated on inquiry.
205. (xvii) Neither of the allegations of obstruction of rubber workers were
206. substantiated on inquiry. Natu Urang was not assaulted by miscreants. Atul
207. Debnath received a "slap" in the course of an altercation with some local
208. people in a market. The offence was "non-cognizable" which meant that no
209. police case could be registered. The police did, however, ensure that "no
210. untoward incident occurred following this incident".
211. (xviii) The Government denies the allegation that a police officer
212. accompanied by a mob of "miscreants" assaulted Dhankumar Tripura on 5 June
213. 1988. However, on the complaint of Mr. Tripura charges were laid against Tapan
214. Majumdar and five others. The matter is still under investigation.
215. (xix) Chikan Tripura was suspected of involvement in the abduction of Dipak
216. Malla and two others. This led some local people to attack Mr. Tripura on 6
217. June 1988. Mr. Tripura laid charges against a number of individuals, but the
218. police subsequently dropped the case for lack of evidence. Mr. Tripura was not
219. assaulted whilst in police custody. The office of the RSU was not taken over
220. by gangsters and there is no evidence that any workers were obstructed from
221. going to work or made jobless.
222. (xx) The allegation that 25 CITU offices were captured by Congress I)
223. supporters proved baseless on inquiry. It is also untrue that the police had
224. refused to take any action in relation to these incidents. The one case which
225. was reported to the police was dealt with "as per the law".
226. (xxi) During the relevant period no unions were deregistered under the 1926
227. Act.
228. (xxii) The alleged gang rape of tribal women was investigated by a
229. Fact-Finding Committee headed by a District Magistrate. The Committee found
230. that the allegations were baseless.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 508. The complainant has presented a series of 22 specific allegations of
   • violations of trade union rights in the State of Tripura. Most of these
   • allegations relate to assaults, murders, arson and false arrests of members
   • and officials of trade unions affiliated to the CITU. Others relate to attacks
   • upon union premises, dismissal and threatened dismissal of trade union
   • members, intimidation of union officials and the deregistration of trade
   • unions.
2. 509. The Government rejects all of these allegations. It states that they
   • either lack factual foundation, or present a distorted picture of what really
   • occurred.
3. 510. The Committee notes that the allegations presented by the complainant
   • are quite specific in nature, in the sense that they concern named
   • individuals, and generally specify the place and date of the violation.
   • However, none of these allegations are supported by documentary evidence of
   • any kind. Similarly, the Government repudiates each of the complainant's
   • allegations seriatim, but does not provide any documentary evidence in support
   • of its position.
4. 511. The Committee has always taken the view that complaints must be as
   • fully supported as possible by evidence of specific infringements of trade
   • union rights (Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association
   • Committee, 1985, para. 43). It has also emphasised that governments should
   • recognise the importance for their own reputation of formulating, so as to
   • allow objective examination, detailed replies to the allegations brought
   • against them (Digest, op. cit., para. 59).
5. 512. Adherence to these precepts is especially important in a case such as
   • the present, where the complainant and the Government are in fundamental
   • disagreement as to the factual basis of the allegations, and as to the
   • application of the principles of freedom of association to those facts.
6. 513. Because of the lack of detailed evidence in support, or refutation, of
   • the various allegations, the Committee finds itself unable to express any
   • decided view on certain of the matters raised by the complainant. Accordingly,
   • it directs the following requests to the Government:
     • - As regards allegation (ii), the Government is asked to provide information
   • as to the outcome of the investigation into the murders of Gopal Ghosh and
   • Nripendra Rudra Paul, including details as to the outcome of any relevant
   • court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (v), the Government is asked to provide further
   • particulars as to the alleged complicity of Badan Gope and Laxminarayan
   • Chauhan in the murder of Haripada Dey. In particular, it is asked to indicate
   • whether these individuals have been charged with any offences in relation to
   • this matter, and if so, whether these charges have been brought to court.
     • - As regards allegation (vii), the Government is asked to provide further
   • particulars as to the charges which have been laid against Dipak Malla and
   • others, including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (ix), the Government is asked to provide further
   • particulars as to the charges which have been laid against Abdul Samad in
   • connection with Kamalchura Police Station Case No. 1(3)/88, including details
   • as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (x), the Government is asked to provide further
   • information as to the outcome of the police investigation into the complaint
   • lodged by Sudhangshu Das (Teliamura Police Station Case No. 5(4)/88),
   • including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (xii), the Government is asked to provide further
   • information as to the outcome of the police investigations into the incident
   • at the Kalshimukh Rubber Plantation Centre on 6 May 1988, including details as
   • to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (xiv), the Government is asked to provide further
   • information as to the charges which were laid against Manimohan Tripura and
   • Surjya Tripura (Baikhora Police Station Case No. 5(5)/88), including details
   • as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (xv), the Government is asked to provide further
   • information as to the outcome of the police investigation into the complaint
   • laid by Shyamal Paul (Teliamura Police Station Case No. 5(2)/88), including
   • details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (xvi), the Government is asked to provide further
   • information as to the charges which were laid against Bharatmoni Notaia under
   • section 251( A)of the Arms Act, including details as to the outcome of any
   • relevant court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (xviii), the Government is asked to provide further
   • information as to the outcome of the police investigation into the complaint
   • laid by Dhankumar Tripura against Tapan Majumdar and others, including details
   • as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
     • - As regards allegation (xx), the Government is asked to provide further
   • information as to the manner in which "the specific case" of capture of an
   • office belonging to a CITU affiliate was "attended as per the law".
7. 514. On the basis of the information supplied by the complainant, and the
   • Government's observations thereon, the Committee considers that the matters
   • raised in allegations (i), (iii), (iv), (vi), (viii), (xi), (xiii), (xvii),
     • (xix), (xxi) and (xx) do not call for further examination.
   • 515. The Committee also considers that, apart from those matters in relation
   • to which requests have been directed to the Government, allegations (v),
     • (vii), (ix), (xii), (xiv), (xv), (xvi) and (xx) do not call for further
   • examination.
8. 516. The Committee has always taken the view that trade union rights can
   • only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats
   • of any kind against trade unionists, and that it is for governments to ensure
   • that this principle is respected (Digest, op. cit., para. 70). On the basis of
   • the evidence contained in the complainant's allegations and in the
   • Government's observations, it regrets that such a climate does not presently
   • exist in the State of Tripura. Accordingly, the Committee calls upon the
   • Government actively to promote the creation and maintenance of a climate in
   • that State which is conducive to the development and maintenance of a
   • genuinely free and independent trade union movement, and to keep the Committee
   • informed of developments in this regard. The Committee also invites the
   • Government to endeavour to obtain the co-operation of the complainant in the
   • creation of such a climate.