Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 96, 1967

1. 39. The complaint of the Shipping Employees' Union (Calcutta) is contained in two communications dated 8 June and 25 July 1966 respectively. The Government furnished its observations thereon by a communication dated 13 January 1967.
2. 40. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 41. The complaint contains a number of contentions relating to the working conditions of dockworkers in Calcutta and to the functioning of the Calcutta Dock Labour Board which do not appear to be directly connected with the exercise of trade union rights. But a number of other points put forward are alleged to be so connected. In the view of the complainants the Dock Labour Board functions in such a way as to enable the employers to use it as a cover for committing unfair labour practices and infringing trade union rights. They refer to the case of one of their members, Mr. Sadhan Banerjee, alleged to have been victimised by his employers, A. C. Roy and Co., because of his trade union activity, and state that the Deputy Chairman of the Dock Labour Board refused to recognise the right of this registered union-the complaining organisation-to present his case. Six other union members are named in the complaint and are alleged to have been demoted from the grade they had held for ten years; when they appealed to the Chairman of the Board, it is alleged, no union official was allowed to present their case, although the law makes provision for this right. It is further alleged that the Ministry of Labour, to which the Dock Labour Board is subordinate, refuses to take steps to enable the union to represent its members in their disputes and appeals. The complainants declare also that, although the law provides that no transfers of workers from the control of private dock employers to that of the Dock Labour Board may result in less favourable conditions, such transfers are being accompanied by demotion because the workers concerned are union members. Finally, it is alleged, manual workers in the docks are subjected to the worst working conditions when they belong to the union.
2. 42. In its communication dated 13 January 1967 the Government states that the complaint contains general allegations regarding violations of the workers' fundamental rights, unfair labour practices, etc., but that it is not clear what trade union rights are claimed to have been violated or by whom. While there may or may not be a case for making changes in the existing dock labour schemes, declares the Government, the allegations relating to the working of the decasualisation schemes in the docks have no connection with trade union rights. The Government concludes by stating that it has received full reports on the cases of the seven workers named in the complaint and that none of them was penalised because of his trade union activity. Copies of the relevant laws and regulations governing dock labour schemes are attached to the Government's reply.
3. 43. The complaint refers in part to matters arising out of the working of the dock labour schemes which have not been shown to involve questions relating directly to the exercise of trade union rights. But it appears from the analysis made in paragraph 41 above that certain other aspects of the case do relate to trade union rights. The complainants raise a number of instances in which anti-union discrimination is alleged to be practised, but those are mostly in general terms. Where the complainants become sufficiently specific as to furnish the names of seven union members alleged to have been victimised for trade union membership, they do not substantiate these cases with evidence sufficiently precise to justify the Committee, even having regard to the fact that the Government has confined itself to stating that the persons concerned were not penalised for trade union activity, making a recommendation that they should be further examined.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 44. There is, however, one aspect of the matter which appears to call for further comment. It is alleged, both generally and with regard to the particular cases cited, that where workers are concerned in individual disputes or appeals, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Dock Labour Board has refused, contrary to law, to recognise the right of their union to represent them in the presentation of their cases, and that the Ministry of Labour has refused to intervene in the matter. The Government has made no direct reference to this aspect of the matter. However, one of the legal texts forwarded with its reply is the Notification of the Ministry of Labour, dated 8 October 1956, which put into effect the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956. Section 48 of this text provides for the right of workers to make appeals against orders relating to their registration or refusal of registration or wrongful allocation to particular work, which may lie, according to the case, to the Deputy Chairman or Chairman of the Dock Labour Board or to the central Government itself. According to subsection (6) of section 48 an appellant shall not be entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner before the appellate authority, but shall be entitled to be represented by a representative of the registered trade union of which he is a member. The right of a worker to be represented by an official of his union in the making of appeals in respect of his working conditions according to procedures prescribed by laws or regulations is a right that is generally recognised in a great many countries. It is particularly important that this right should be respected when, as in the present case, manual workers whose level of education does not enable them to defend themselves adequately before an appellate authority without the assistance of more experienced persons are not permitted to be represented by a lawyer and so can rely only on their union officers to help them.