DISPLAYINFrench - Spanish
- 72. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns alleged acts of
anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union affairs through the creation
of a puppet union, dismissals, suspensions and transfers of trade union members,
arbitrary reduction of wages, physical violence and lodging of false criminal charges
against its members, at its November 2012 meeting [see 365th Report, paras 79–87]. On
that occasion, the Committee expected that the cases concerning dismissed workers still
pending before the courts would be concluded without delay and urged the Government to
keep it informed of the outcome. It also requested the complainant to provide all
relevant updated information regarding all the allegations of unfair labour practices,
including cases of suspension, show cause notices and other disciplinary actions, as
well as allegations of filing, by an employer, of false criminal charges against trade
unionists in the basis of which they have been subsequently dismissed. Moreover, the
Committee once again requested the Government to encourage the government of Tamil Nadu
to address the matter of the necessity to adopt legislative provisions in furtherance of
trade union rights and to provide information on all measures taken in order to bring
legislation into conformity with freedom of association principles.
- 73. In its communication dated 2 April 2013, the Government furnishes
details of the cases filed by dismissed employees as per the information provided by the
management of the MRF Arakonam plant. Accordingly, the following dismissal cases are
pending before the High Court of Madras: M. Subramani and P.N. Ravinder (both dismissed
on 18 March 2004 for stoning the company bus). Furthermore, the following dismissal
cases are pending before the Industrial Tribunal of Chennai: D. Runsted (dismissed on 5
January 2011 due to low performance), T.N. Ramesh (dismissed on 5 January 2011 due to
low performance), A. Shajahan (dismissed on 5 January 2011 due to intimidation),
K. Raghupathy (dismissed on 5 January 2011 due to intimidation), A. Murali (dismissed on
5 January 2011 due to intimidation and abusing), R. Mohan (dismissed on 24 February 2012
due to absenteeism), K. Sivalingam (dismissed on 21 May 2012 due to low performance), T.
Sekar (dismissed on 19 June 2012 due to instigation of stay in strike) and L.
Harikrishnan (dismissed on 26 November 2012 due to absenteeism).
- 74. The Government further states that the management appointed an
independent external person as inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry into the charges
levelled against those employees. According to the Government, the inquiry has been
conducted following the principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer, after
examining the witnesses and evidence, has submitted the findings report. The charges
have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the inquiry officer has found them guilty
of the charges levelled against them. The order of termination has been passed
considering the gravity of the misconduct, past record of workmen and as per the
Certified Standing Orders applicable. The Commissioner of Labour of Chennai also
observed that the dismissal cases are pending before the appropriate legal forum. The
Government adds that in view of the pendency of the cases before judiciary, no further
action could be taken by the Government.
- 75. The Government also indicates that, as per the inputs from the
government of Tamil Nadu, they have taken note of the recommendations of the Committee
concerning the allegations of unfair labour practices. It further explains that the
authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have taken prompt action on the
industrial disputes raised by the union and disposed them in accordance with prevailing
law in this regard. The State Government cannot interfere in the functioning of
courts.
- 76. Concerning the recommendation to bring the legislation of the
government of Tamil Nadu in accordance with the principles of freedom of association,
including the adoption of legislative provisions that further the goal of preventing
anti-union discrimination and the infringement of trade union rights, the Government
asserts that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides for a framework for
investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. It adds that it brought various
amendments in the Industrial Disputes Act on 15 September 2010, which provide for the
establishment of a Grievance Redress Machinery in every industrial establishment
employing 20 or more workmen. The Government finds that in Tamil Nadu vibrant
conciliation machinery with requisite expertise to meet the new challenges has been put
in place, and that the existing provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and rules made
thereunder prescribe elaborate procedures for resolution of disputes and provide for
mechanisms to address the issues raised by the trade unions. The Government further adds
that the Trade Union Act, 1926, does not provide for the recognition of trade unions,
but that the issue of enacting legislation in this regard was deliberated in the
tripartite consultative committee, namely the State Labour Advisory Board, on 30 January
2013, and the subject is under examination of the State Government.
- 77. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the
Government. Concerning the anti-union dismissals denounced by the complainant, the
Committee deeply regrets that two cases are still pending before the High Court of
Madras although almost ten years have elapsed since the termination of employment of the
relevant employees. The Committee recalls that, in a case in which proceedings
concerning dismissals had already taken 14 months, the Committee requested the judicial
authorities, in order to avoid a denial of justice, to pronounce on the dismissals
without delay and emphasized that any further undue delay in the proceedings could in
itself justify the reinstatement of these persons in their posts [see Digest of
decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised)
edition, 2006, para. 827]. Considering that justice delayed is justice denied, the
Committee firmly expects that these cases will be concluded without any further delay
and urges the Government to provide copies of the rulings as soon as they are handed
down. Observing that in a communication dated 27 October 2010, the Government had
indicated that 31 dismissal cases were pending in court, the Committee requests the
Government to provide up-to-date information on the outcome of the remaining judicial
proceedings. Furthermore, the Committee urges once again the Government to provide
detailed observations regarding the status of the cases of allegedly false criminal
charges brought against members and officers of the MRF United Workers’ Union and of the
cases concerning alleged transfers of union members because of their union membership or
activities.
- 78. With regard to the Committee’s previous recommendations that the
Government actively consider the adoption of legislative provisions in furtherance of
trade union rights to bring legislation into line with the principles of freedom of
association, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on
the outcome of the deliberations of the State Labour Advisory Board on 30 January 2013
and of the examination by the State Government of the issue regarding the enactment of
legislation regarding recognition of trade unions. Considering that the absence of a
clear objective and precise procedure for determining the most representative union has
led to the lack of resolution of this matter and has fomented continuing conflict within
the company, which is not conducive to harmonious industrial relations, the Committee
firmly expects that the Government will actively consider, in full and frank
consultations with the social partners, establishing objective rules for the designation
of the most representative union for collective bargaining purposes. Furthermore, the
Committee once again requests the Government to give due consideration to the adoption
of legislative provisions that further the goal of preventing anti-union discrimination
including by providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The
Committee notes the adoption in 2010 of amendments to the Industrial Dispute Act which
provide for the establishment of a grievance redress machinery, but once again recalls
the need to amend the relevant provisions of the Act to ensure that suspended workers
and trade unions may approach the court directly, without being referred to by the State
Government.
