Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 168, Noviembre 1977

1. 23. By a communication dated 10 October 1975 the National Union of Race Employees of India presented a complaint containing allegations of infringements of trade union rights in India. Further allegations and additional information in connection with the complaint were contained in subsequent communications from the National Union of Race Employees of India dated 17 November 1975, 30 January, 18 September, 24 November and 3 December 1976, and 7 January 1977.
2. 24. The complaint and the additional communications were transmitted to the Government of India which, in a communication dated 25 February 1977, transmitted its observations in connection with the complaint.
3. 25. India has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 26. In its complaint the National Union of Race Employees of India alleged that the management of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club had been trying to crush the Calcutta (west Bengal) branch of the union. In spite of an agreement reached in 1972 whereby recognition was granted to the union, the management had tried, through victimisation of union members and by providing benefits in the form of extra increments, loans, promotion etc. to workers who left the union, to crush its Calcutta branch.
2. 27. In addition, the complainants continued, conditions of service and pay scales were different throughout the country but the Government had failed to set up a national tribunal so that a unified system might be introduced.
3. 28. The complainants also referred to the case of some of their members who worked for the management of the Indian Society of Equitation of Horse Mastership of Calcutta who had been dismissed some three years ago. Their case had been referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication but the management had appealed to the High Court in Calcutta for a ruling on the matter. The complainants alleged that the Government was doing nothing to assist the workers who were members of the complainant union.
4. 29. According to the complainants the management and the Government in fact adopted a new plan to set up a rival union, called the Royal Calcutta Turf Club Employees Union, the first president and secretary of which were two state ministers, namely Mr. Sabrata Mukherje and Mr. Gyan Singh Sohan Pal. These persons subsequently resigned. The Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation officer thereafter resigned from his government post and became Labour-Administrative Officer for the Royal Calcutta Turf Club.
5. 30. Now, continue the complainants, the management had stopped acknowledging correspondence from the union and the Government had failed to settle a number of disputes. In this connection the complainants refer to a dispute in 1974 in which there were conciliation and arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator had completed hearing in July 1975 but only as regards trainers' staff and he had not yet examined the case of the workers at the Royal Calcutta Turf Club.
6. 31. The complainants also referred to another incident concerning workers' housing in respect of which the union had raised an industrial dispute. The matter had been examined by the Additional Labour commissioner, but owing to the lack of effort on the Dart of the Government no accommodation was found for the workers concerned.
7. 32. The complainants added that the management had also neglected or failed to implement the terms of various bipartite and tripartite agreements.
8. 33. In their subsequent communications, the complainants provided additional detailed information in support of their allegations and submitted further allegations mainly relating to working conditions or to the management's failure to implement agreements.
9. 34. In one communication, dated 30 January 1976, the complainants stated that on 29 January 1976 the management had called the union for a meeting to discuss a threatened 24-hour strike which was due to take place on 30 January 1976. According to the complainants, the union representatives were only called to be threatened with imprisonment under the maintenance of the Internal Security Act if the strike was not called off.
10. 35. In another communication dated 24 November 1976 the complainants referred to a long-term bipartite agreement reached on 25 June 1976 with the Royal Calcutta Turf Club but alleged that once this had been signed the management refused to recognise the terms of another bipartite settlement. Reference was made to the labour department but, according to the complainants, no action had been taken so far. The complainants added that the Additional Labour Commissioner of West Bengal did arrange a joint conference on the issues involved for 22 September 1976 but owing to pressure of work a number of issues remained unresolved.
11. 36. In its reply dated 25 February 1977 the Government stated, with regard to the allegations regarding extra increments, loans, promotion, etc., granted to non-members of the complainant union, that these allegations were vague and in the absence of specific instances it was not possible to offer any comment. Detailed comments were however supplied by the Government as regards one allegation concerning the non-payment of earned dues to one worker.
12. 37. The case concerning the Indian Society of Equitation and Horse Mastership, continued the Government, was pending before the High court and was sub judice. No comments on this matter could therefore be offered. As for the allegations that the Government had failed to set up a National Tribunal, the Government referred to section 10(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides that the Government may set up a national tribunal when it appears that a dispute is of such a nature that industrial establishments in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such a dispute. The Government stated that it was for it to judge whether or not such reference was necessary within the broad conditions stated in the Act.
13. 38. According to the Government the Royal Calcutta Turf Club had denied the allegation that workers had been recruited in order to create an anti-union group. As a result of a mutual understanding with the union, a number of casual workers had been confirmed in their jobs. Other casual workers had been engaged for about a month prior to the racing season in order to prepare the tracks.
14. 39. In its reply the Government also supplied certain details concerning certain other statements that had been made by the complainants.
15. 40. The Government pointed out that while certain of the allegations were vague or general others were in the nature of routine grievances or demands which could be settled by having recourse to the established procedures for the settlement of disputes. Some of these, continued the Government, were outdated and had already been examined by the Committee. As was in evidence, continued the Government, on a number of occasions the state conciliation machinery had intervened and had brought about settlement. As a result, the terms and conditions of service relating to wages, working conditions and other fringe benefits had improved. As regards the issues falling within the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the state conciliation machinery did intervene and had made efforts to resolve the disputes through discussions at tripartite level.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 41. The Committee notes that it has already had occasion to examine the complaints submitted by the National Union of Race Employees of India (then the Royal Calcutta Turf Club Workers Union) against the Government of India. These previous complaints generally concerned the same kind of questions as are raised in the present complaint, namely the alleged non-recognition of the complainant union by the management of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club, attempts to crush the union and also a large number of questions concerning working conditions arising mainly out of the alleged failure to respect a number of agreements concluded with the Royal Calcutta Turf Club.
2. 42. As regards the allegations concerning non-recognition of the complainant union, the Committee once again cannot fail to note the existence of a number of agreements concluded with the Royal Calcutta Turf Club, the latest of which, referred to by the complainants themselves, was concluded on 25 June 1976. As for the allegations relating to the non-implementation of these agreements and the individual grievances to which the complainants refer in detail, the Committee would point out that such questions should be settled at the national level through the appropriate national machinery and procedures for the settlement of industrial disputes. It would seem to the Committee that as regards a considerable number of the questions described in the complaints, recourse has been had to the state conciliation services.