Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO362, November 2011

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 75. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2009 meeting [see 354th Report, paras 108–119]. This case concerns acts of anti-union discrimination including dismissals, the suppression of a strike by the police and refusal to negotiate in the Worldwide Diamond Manufacturers Ltd, which is situated in the EPZ of Visakhapatnam in the state of Andhra Pradesh. At its June 2009 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations:
   • (a) As regards the alleged cases of anti-union discrimination resulting in imposition of fines, dismissals and suspensions of trade unionists, the Committee underlined the excessive delay in the judicial resolution of the cases given that the complaint was filed in 2002 and requested the Government to send the judicial resolutions in the 20 cases it states have been disposed of, and to keep it informed of any further developments in the 18 pending cases.
   • (b) The Committee requested the Government to institute an independent investigation in respect of allegations concerning the brutal suppression of a strike by workers at Worldwide Diamonds Manufacturing Ltd in January and February of 2002, the detention of hundreds of striking workers and a trade union officer by the police, the prohibition of meetings in the complainant’s local office, excessive police violence (caning and chaining of workers), and the visit of police officers to workers’ homes in order to threaten them so that they return to work and to keep it informed of the results.
   • (c) As regards the question of restrictions on the right to collective bargaining of workers in the VEPZ and on the right of the Visakhapatnam Export Processing Workers’ Union to take part in negotiations with the management of the Worldwide Diamonds Manufacturers Ltd, the Committee repeated its request that the Government provide a copy of the minutes of the joint meeting held on 3 September 2004 that led to the lifting of the employer’s lockout, which the Government indicates it has forwarded to the Committee but which have still not been received. The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the evolution of collective bargaining and to send any agreement reached by the parties.
   • (d) As regards the request that the Government takes necessary steps to ensure that in the EPZ of Visakhapatnam the functions of Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO) are not performed by the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC) but by another independent person or body having the confidence of all parties concerned, the Committee expected the Government to make quick progress on steps taken to ensure that the roles of GRO and DDC are carried out by different persons or bodies, and thereby to promote the settlement of disputes and grievances through inexpensive, expeditious and impartial conciliation procedures. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information in this regard as soon as possible, as well as its observations on the allegations in respect of the state government of Uttar Pradesh which introduced the same unjust practice of vesting administrative/operational heads in non-EPZ/Special Economic Zone (SEZ) areas with the power and responsibility of a GRO [see 354th Report, para. 109].
   • (e) The Committee repeated its request that the Government take all necessary measures, including amending the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, so as to ensure that suspended workers as well as trade unions could approach the court directly, without being referred by the state Government.
   • (f) The Committee requested the Government to institute expeditiously an inquiry in order to thoroughly and promptly consider the alleged dismissals and suspensions at the Synergies Dooray Automotive Ltd and to keep it informed of the outcome in this regard.
2. 76. In a communication dated 7 April 2011, the Government of India forwards the following observations of the Development Commissioner of Visakhapatnam EPZ:
   • – As regards point (a), (c) and (e) above, no information was provided.
   • – As regards point (b), the Development Commissioner indicates that the Principal Secretary, Labour Employment Training and Factories Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh stated again that all the accused were acquitted in CC No. 421/02 on 29 November 2006 and no independent inquiry is required since a judicial Court has already adjudicated the matter.
   • – As regards point (d), the Development Commissioner responded that one post on deputation basis from the State Labour Department in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Labour was created in the EPZ to look after the grievances of the workers.
   • – As regards point (f), the Development Commissioner indicated that the company had set up their unit initially in the EPZ under EPZ scheme but after conversion of the EPZ into a non-EPZ/SEZ in 2003, the unit was converted as an EOU and continued its operations outside the special economic zone. When the unit was under EPZ scheme, no independent inquiry was conducted on the alleged dismissal and suspension of workers. Presently, the unit does not come under the jurisdiction of the special economic zone on labour matters. The Development Commissioner further indicates that the company is no longer in business and that a separate company, Synergies Castings Ltd, has been operating in the said unit since 1 May 2005.
3. 77. The Committee deeply regrets that nine years have passed since the complainant first filed allegations with the Committee in the present case which remains largely unresolved. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government and requests it once again to provide the outstanding information, given the importance that the Committee attaches to such proceedings being concluded expeditiously, as justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 104 and 105]. The Committee requests once again the Government to provide the information requested. with respect to recommendations (a), (c) and (e).
4. 78. In respect of allegations concerning the brutal suppression of a strike by workers at Worldwide Diamonds Manufacturing Ltd in January and February of 2002, the detention of hundreds of striking workers and a trade union officer by the police, the prohibition of meetings in the complainant’s local office, excessive police violence (caning and chaining of workers), and the visit of police officers to workers’ homes in order to threaten them so that they return to work, the Committee observes with concern, while duly noting the Government’s response that all the accused were acquitted in CC No. 421/02 on 29 November 2006 and that no independent inquiry is required since a judicial court has already adjudicated the matter, that no independent investigation was undertaken regarding the specific allegations made by the complainants with respect to the behaviour of the police forces and the alleged use of excessive force. Given the time that has elapsed, the Committee would request the Government to send the judicial decision of 29 November 2006 in CC No. 421/02.
5. 79. As regards the request that the Government take necessary steps to ensure that in the EPZ of Visakhapatnam the functions of GRO are not performed by the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC) but by another independent person or body having the confidence of all parties concerned, the Committee notes that one post on deputation basis from the State Labour Department in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Labour was created to look after the grievances of the workers.
6. 80. As regards the alleged dismissals and suspensions at the Synergies Dooray Automotive Ltd, the Committee notes with regret that no independent inquiry was conducted and that the company is no longer in business. The Committee recalls that anti-union discrimination is one of the most serious violations of freedom of association, as it may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions and the ultimate responsibility for ensuring respect for the principles of freedom of association lies with the Government [see Digest, op. cit., paras 769 and 17]. The Committee further recalls that, where the enterprise no longer exists, measures should be taken to ensure that workers dismissed for trade union activities are fully compensated [see Digest, op. cit., para. 848] and that a corporate restructuring should not directly or indirectly threaten unionized workers and their organizations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 797]. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the workers dismissed and suspended had initiated court proceedings.