Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 104, 1968

1. 67. The complaint is contained in a communication addressed to the I.L.O on 2 August 1966 and transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 19 August 1966. The Government replied by a letter dated 17 January 1967.
2. 68. 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. 69. Certain aspects of the complaint relate to generalities or to matters not apparently directly connected with the exercise of trade union rights. The complaint refers also, however, to the following alleged infringements of trade union rights. Prior to March 1964 the employees of Gladstone, Lyall and Co. belonged to the Gladstone, Lyall and Co. Employees' Union, almost all of whose officers the complainants alleged were Communists. The complainants alleged collusion between the employers and the said union, according to which the Communist Party members had received higher wages and cost-of-living allowances and better working conditions, the other workers having been discriminated against in these respects and also in respect of holidays and payment of various kinds of benefits. Because of these circumstances and other grievances the workers called a strike in April 1964 and then joined the complaining union. Since that time, it was alleged, anti-union discrimination was being practised by the employers, notably by paying an increased " dearness allowance " to members of the " Communist-controlled " union but not to members of the complainant union.
2. 70. The complainants alleged that the police, in collusion with the employers, were used for strike-breaking purposes. When the strike was called in April 1964, it was alleged, the State Labour Directorate issued notices giving dates for conciliation meetings; such a step having been taken, stated the complainants, effect should then have been given to section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949, which prohibits any alteration of conditions of service by an employer pending conciliation proceedings. It was alleged, however, that the employers violated the law by ordering the strikers to vacate the living quarters which they had occupied as part of their terms of employment. The complaining organisation stated that it therefore applied to the court, which made an order prohibiting the employers from ejecting the workers from their quarters and directed the police to ensure that no attempt was made to eject them. In defiance of this court order, it was alleged, the management ejected the workers, with the help of hired thugs and police officers, who also looted the offices of the complaining union, following which the police, at the instance of the management, arrested and prosecuted the General Secretary of the union and a considerable number of the workers. The complaining union furnished a purported copy of the judgment of the Session Court, in March 1966, acquitting the General Secretary and the 32 members of the union charged with him. The complainants drew attention to the remarks of the court concerning the contempt of court committed by the Assistant Police Commissioner concerned and to the doubts cast by the judge on the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses. In short, it was claimed, the police had been used for strike-breaking purposes, to help the management to commit unlawful acts contrary to a court order and to statute, and to bring a fabricated prosecution which the court had criticised and rejected.
3. 71. Finally, the complainants alleged that the Code of Discipline in Industry subscribed to jointly by the Government, employers' organisations and workers' organisations, was not observed. They claimed that if there is a strike the workers are charged with breaches of the Code, but that if the employers refuse to recognise a union (contrary to the Code), as in the present case, the Government pretends that the Code is recommendatory and not mandatory.
4. 72. In its communication dated 17 January 1967 the Government stated that the complaint consisted of general allegations of violations of fundamental rights of workers, unfair labour practices, etc., without making it clear what trade union rights had been infringed. Until precise issues had been framed by the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Government did not propose to go into details of allegations for which legal remedies were available to the complaining union.
5. 73. When it considered the case at its 45th Session in February 1967 the Committee observed that, while certain parts of the complaint were not directly related to trade union rights, the major part of it, analysed briefly in paragraphs 69 to 71 above, appeared to consist of allegations of infringements of trade union rights. An important part of the complaint related to alleged strike-breaking by the police in collusion with the employers; the Committee recalled having always applied the principle that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. It has pointed out on these occasions that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised.
6. 74. In its reply the Government stated that it did not propose to go into the details of the allegations unless the Committee framed " precise issues ".
7. 75. The Committee therefore requested the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations on the following allegations:
   • (a) the allegations that the employers impliedly promoted a company union by conniving with the officers of the Gladstone, Lyall and Co. Employees' Union and affording better working conditions to them and to their supporters (numbered paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the complaint);
   • (b) the allegations that since 1964 the employers have practised anti-union discrimination by paying allowances to members of the old union and denying them to members of the new union (paragraph 30 of the complaint);
   • (c) the allegations that section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which protects workers concerned in an industrial dispute, has been violated (paragraphs 15 to 21 of the complaint);
   • (d) the allegations that the police were unlawfully used for strike-breaking purposes, in connivance with the employers, and fabricated a prosecution case against the General Secretary and 32 members of the complaining union which was rejected by the competent court (paragraphs 21 to 26 of the complaint and purported copy of the judgment attached to the complaint);
   • (e) the allegations that persons hired by the employers together with the police looted the records and funds on the premises of the complaining organisation (paragraph 26 of the complaint);
   • (f) the allegations that the Code of Discipline in Industry, subscribed to by the Government, employers' organisations and workers' organisations, is enforced against workers but is not enforced as regards union recognition and, particularly, that contrary to the Code the complaining organisation is not recognised (paragraph 34 of the complaint).
8. 76. The Committee also requested the Government to state whether the purported copy furnished by the complainants of the judgment, in the criminal proceedings brought against the General Secretary and 32 members of the complaining organisation (Tenth Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, Sessions Trial No. 2 of March Sessions, 1966) was a correct text of the judgment, or, if not, to be good enough to furnish an authentic text thereof.
9. 77. By letter dated 21 February 1967 the Director-General communicated these requests to the Government, which replied by a communication dated 30 August 1967.
10. 78. In this communication, which the Committee considered at its 47th Session in November 1967, the Government indicated that information was still awaited from the Government of West Bengal with regard to the correctness of the judgment in question. Moreover, it stated that the complainants had now informed the West Bengal Labour Directorate that they had no grievance in so far as that Directorate is concerned. The Government indicated that the complainants were being asked to withdraw their complaint from the I.L.O.
11. 79. In these circumstances the Committee at its session of November 1967 asked the Director-General to request the complainants to be good enough to inform it: (a) whether they accepted, as the Government said they did, that they had no grievance in so far as the West Bengal Labour Directorate was concerned; and (b) whether they intended to withdraw any of the allegations contained in the complaint and, if so, on what grounds.
12. 80. The Committee's request for further information was communicated to the complainants in the Director-General's letter of 28 November 1967 and the complainants replied to this in a letter dated 26 December 1967.
13. 81. In this communication the complainants give the following information. The West Bengal Labour Directorate contacted the complainant organisation and admitted, through its officers, that it had been at fault and made immediate arrangements for the complainant's grievances to be heard by an industrial tribunal. The matter has now been referred to the Third Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
14. 82. Thereafter, the General Secretary of the complainant organisation was asked by the West Bengal Labour Directorate to state, in writing, that the complainants had no further grievance as far as the Labour Directorate was concerned. In view of the fact that the Labour Directorate had admitted fault and that the dispute was now before the Third Industrial Tribunal, the General Secretary agreed to the Labour Directorate's request, on the clear understanding, however, that " the union would surely pursue the complaint against the other authority, including the police ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 83. It appears from the complainants' letter that the Government was correct in stating that there was no further grievance as far as the Labour Directorate was concerned. This being so, it would seem that the complainants intend to withdraw the complaint before the I.L.O in so far as it relates to the allegations mentioned in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 75 above.
2. 84. In these circumstances, and considering that the matters dealt with in the abovementioned subparagraphs are now being reviewed by the appropriate national tribunal, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these aspects of the case do not call for further examination.
3. 85. As far as the remaining allegations of the complaint are concerned (see subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 75 above), it appears from the complainant organisation's letter that it does not intend to withdraw these from the original complaint; on the contrary, the complainants ask in the letter of 26 December 1967 " that the I.L.O should take suitable action on these matters ".