Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 109, 1969

1. 44. The complaint of the Shree Krishna Private Ltd. Employees' Union (Calcutta) is contained in a communication dated 18 October 1967 forwarded directly to the ILO. The text was transmitted to the Government with a request for its observations by a letter dated 2 November 1967. In a communication dated 29 November 1967 the complainants submitted further information in support of their complaint. The text of this communication was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 15 December 1967.
2. 45. By a communication dated 23 April 1968 the Government sent certain observations on the case.
3. 46. 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. 47. Certain aspects of the complaint relate to generalities or to matters which do not appear to be directly related to the exercise of trade union rights. Nevertheless, the complaint also contains allegations of certain acts on the part of the undertaking which, according to the complainants, were aimed at destroying the union.
2. 48. The complainants allege that workers in the factory are regularly required to work overtime but that payment of double the normal wage, as laid down by the law in such cases, is never made. The complainants state that, when there was no trade union, the workers were unable to protest; once the complainant union had been formed, they demanded overtime pay as laid down by law, whereupon the management of the undertaking began victimisation. The complainants further state that the authorities failed to respond to the union's representations, " and this was done with a view to helping the employer to crush the union ".
3. 49. The complainants also state that, as soon as the management learned that the workmen and employees were trying to form a union, they began laying off workers continuously. They allege that, after the trade union was formed, the undertaking stopped the duties of its leaders and removed some of them from service on false pretexts, and that the authorities failed to take any action despite the detailed representations made to them by the trade union. It is further alleged that some members of the union had their annual wage increments stopped.
4. 50. In the additional information supplied in support of their complaint, the complainants state that their most active members, seven of whose names are given, were laid off for a continuous period of 208 days, during which they were paid only half the wages to which they were entitled. The names of the seven persons concerned are given as Messrs. A. R. Paul, Koleswar Beldur, Hyal Md. Khan (it is alleged that another person was appointed in his place whilst he was laid off), Awad Narayan Singh, Ayodha Kurni, Jogeswar Kohar and Ahamed Khan. According to the complainants, the workers held a peaceful demonstration outside the company's offices in Calcutta on 5 May 1967 in order to secure redress of their grievances, and the management declared a lockout on the same evening. At the instance of the trade union, the Government is said to have issued an order, under subsection 3 of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in which the management was directed to end the lockout. The complainants allege that the management did not comply with the order and that the authorities took no action against the management despite representations to them by the union, and that finally a court stayed execution of the government order at the request of the management.
5. 51. The complainants furnish certain explanations to indicate that, although the company closed the factory, it continued its operations in one of the offices without informing anyone, " with the sole idea of keeping the officers of the union, namely the Vice-President, the Joint Secretary, the Treasurer and a few Executive Committee members and other leading members of the union out of employment "; some of these persons were replaced by new workers.
6. 52. It also appears from the complaint that the trade union had reported to the competent authorities that the undertaking was engaged in black-market trading of raw materials imported for use in the factory. The complainants state that the management brought criminal charges against nearly all the members and leaders of the union; that the union requested that these workers should be defended by government lawyers since they had been unemployed for over six months; and that the union also requested the Government to take over the factory and hand it over to the workers to be run on a co-operative basis. The complainants consider that the Government, in failing to meet their demands, supported the employers in their anti-trade union activities.
7. 53. The complainants state in their second communication, dated 29 November 1967, that the employers later held discussions with union representatives and that tripartite meetings were held before the Joint Labour Commissioner of West Bengal. Nevertheless, the employers are said to have stated clearly that, whilst they were prepared to examine the cases of the factory workmen, they refused to take back the office workers. In the complainants' opinion, the employers were determined to crush the union by refusing to reinstate its leading officers.
8. 54. In its communication of 23 April 1968 the Government stated that the complaint in question does not refer to specific cases of infringement of trade union rights but that it contains general allegations on various matters, including payment of low wages, non-implementation of labour laws, awards of industrial tribunals, etc. In these circumstances the Government of India requested the Committee to frame " precise issues " on which it wished to receive observations from the Government.
9. 55. When the case came before it at its session in May 1968, the Committee, while recognising that certain parts of the complaint were not connected with the exercise of trade union rights, noted that various parts of the complaint stressed the fact that the undertaking had carried out acts of discrimination against the members and leaders of the union merely because, as suggested by the complaint, the trade union had been formed and had made claims defending the occupational interests of the workers.
10. 56. The Committee also noted from the complainants' communication of 29 November 1967 that discussions were stated to have begun between the parties concerned and the authorities shortly before that date with a view to settling the dispute.
11. 57. The Committee therefore requested the Director-General to ask the Government to furnish its observations on the following points: (a) the allegations that the Shree Krishna Private undertaking, in order to crush the union, laid off the union members whose names are mentioned by the complainants in their communication of 29 November 1967; (b) the allegations that the undertaking stopped the duties of the union leaders, removing some of them from service, as a result of the creation of the union; (c) the allegations that the authorities ignored the union's representations in respect of the allegations referred to under (a) and (b) above; (d) the present state of, and any results that may have emerged from, the discussions between the parties concerned and the Joint Labour Commissioner of West Bengal with a view to settling the dispute.
12. 58. The Government was requested by letter dated 6 June 1968 to furnish the above information, and it replied by a communication dated 25 September 1968.
13. 59. In its reply the Government states that the allegation that members of the trade union were laid off by the management and their services stopped in order to crush the union could not be substantiated. It gives the following description of the events.
14. 60. For some time the trade union had been carrying on an agitation with a view to promoting its demands in respect of alleged illegal lay-offs, alleged termination of services, implementation of Wage Board recommendations and implementation of the award of the Seventh Industrial Tribunal.
15. 61. The parties had been carrying on discussions at tripartite level but could not arrive at a settlement. By a letter dated 12 May 1967 the trade union informed the Howrah Regional Office of the Labour Directorate that the workers had resorted to a half-day's token strike on 11 May 1967 and had demonstrated outside the company's head offices in Calcutta. In the same letter the complainants alleged that on returning to the factory they had found it under lock and key with a notice at the factory gate declaring the factory closed as from 11 May 1967. The union demanded the reopening of the factory.
16. 62. An inquiry carried out by the authorities revealed that, at the instance of the union, the workers had besieged the company's head office and prevented the managing director, the senior officers and other staff members from leaving. Similar incidents took place on two further occasions.
17. 63. After the factory was closed, efforts at conciliation failed. In these circumstances the Government referred the issue to an industrial tribunal for adjudication as to whether the management was justified in declaring the factory closed, and as to what relief, if any, the workmen were entitled to. At the same time, the Government issued an order prohibiting the continuation of the strike or lockout in connection with this dispute. The other points at issue which could not be settled through conciliation were also referred to the industrial tribunal.
18. 64. The Government further states that, at the request of both the parties to the dispute, the Joint Labour Commissioner intervened, as a result of which various issues were settled by an agreement signed by the parties on 8 December 1967. The Government forwards a copy of this agreement with its communication. It was agreed between the parties that the factory would reopen with effect from 13 December 1967, that no payment would be made to the workers for the period of strike and closure and that each worker would be paid token relief within seven days after the reopening of the factory.
19. 65. It would appear from the actual agreement, firstly, that all of the proceedings brought by the parties against each other had been withdrawn and, secondly, that the persons who had been laid off and had not received wages were to be paid those wages.
20. 66. With regard to the allegations that workers were laid off and their duties stopped, the Committee is faced with conflicting statements. Whereas the complainants claim that the action in question was aimed at crushing the union, the Government denies this. It should be noted, however, that no details on this matter have been supplied by either the complainants or the Government.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 67. The Committee notes, however, that, under the agreement later signed between the parties, it would appear that the persons who had been laid off have received wages not paid to them during the period of layoff and that this solution was acceptable to the persons concerned.
2. 68. It does not appear to the Committee that the complainants' allegation that the authorities ignored the union's representations is justified. The observations furnished by the Government show that it took action with regard to the dispute between the employers and their workers by referring it to the industrial tribunal and, at the request of the parties, by placing the matter before the Labour Commissioner.
3. 69. From the information available to the Committee, it would appear that the parties freely reached an agreement which seems to have solved the difficulties in question in a manner satisfactory to everyone.