Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 120, 1971

1. 207. The complaint and the related supplementary information are contained in three communications addressed directly to the ILO by the Royal Calcutta Turf Club Workers' Union on 6 and 14 August and 14 October 1969.
2. 208. The text of the complaint and the supplementary information submitted by the complainants were transmitted to the Government for its observations in a letter dated 26 March 1970. By a communication dated 8 April 1970, the Government asked the Committee to specify the points in respect of which it would like to receive the Government's observations. At its meeting in May 1970 the Committee requested the Government to be good enough to comment upon certain specific allegations and the Government replied by a communication dated 20 August 1970.
3. 209. India has not ratified either 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. 210. The complainants allege that, according to the terms of two agreements concluded between the racehorse trainers of Calcutta and the Union, the employers were to settle a number of labour claims by 8 August 1969. However, instead of settling these claims, the management of the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. forbade the employees to meet together even in groups of five or to carry out trade union business after working hours. The Secretary of the Union (Mr. A. L. Roy) came to Bangalore for the purpose of taking up the workers' grievances, but the management refused to see him and he was reduced to writing a formal letter of protest against the anti-union measures taken by the management.
2. 211. While he was in Bangalore, a large number of other workers (grooms employed by the various racehorse trainers of Madras) asked him to take up their grievances, as they had no union. He agreed and the workers authorised Mr. Roy and his Union to represent them in accordance with section 36 (c) of the Indian Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. 212. Accordingly, Mr. Roy drew up a charter of demands on behalf of the Madras workers and placed it before the employers, the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., and the Labour Minister of Mysore. At the same time, he asked the Secretary of the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. to arrange a meeting with the trainers of Madras and Calcutta so that their claims might be amicably settled by 17 July 1969, failing which the workers from Madras might go on strike, since they were greatly concerned that their conditions of service were markedly inferior to those of similar workers employed in Bombay and Calcutta. It was also brought to the management's attention that, if the grooms of Madras were compelled to strike on 19 July 1969 or on any other race day, the grooms of Calcutta and Bombay would, in all probability, come out in sympathy. At the same time, Mr. Roy asked the Commissioner of Police of Mysore state for permission, in case such permission was necessary, for the workers to hold a peaceful procession on 18 July 1969.
4. 213. The complainants allege that at 4.30 a.m. on 18 July 1969 the police arrested Mr. Roy at his residence without informing him of the nature of the charges against him. He spent some thirty hours at the police station and was not permitted to get in touch with any of his friends or fellow trade unionists.
5. 214. It is alleged that Mr. Roy's arrest prevented him from appearing at a meeting arranged between the union and the racehorse trainers of Calcutta for 8.30 a.m. on 18 July 1969, for the purpose of negotiating with the management. The workers, in consequence, began looking for Mr. Roy, but when they found him at the police station, the police drove them out and would not let them talk to him. In the afternoon of that same day, the police went to the Palace Polo Ground and removed all the striking workers. In the course of this police action, not only were some twenty-eight leading workmen arrested and many brutally assaulted, but their cash and identity papers were seized and all their personal belongings, including food and clothing, were impounded on the premises, which were then placed under the strict control of the armed police.
6. 215. On 19 July 1969 Mr. Roy was brought before a court and released on a bail of 1,000 rupees. Four days later he was again arrested while he was negotiating with certain employers.
7. 216. The complainants allege that further arrests of striking workers and police brutality took place on 22 July 1969, when the workers were holding a peaceful procession.
8. 217. The complainants also assert that a fire which broke out in the horses' stables inside the Palace Polo Grounds at Bangalore on 25 July 1969 was deliberately caused by the employers acting in collusion with the authorities to provide a pretext on which to arrest the leaders of the Union, thereby preventing them from furthering the interests of the workers. It is alleged that no reply has been received to the petition which the workers sent to the Prime Minister of India and the Home Minister of the Government of Mysore, asking for a judicial inquiry into the origins of the fire, since such an inquiry would be bound to reveal that at the time the fire broke out the entire Palace Polo Ground was in the hands of the police and that not a single striking worker or union leader was less than half a mile away from the scene of the incident. It is further alleged that each day more peaceful strikers are being arrested to make them confess that they and the union were responsible for the fire.
9. 218. In a letter dated 14 August 1969 the complainants allege that the Government of Mysore, through its Home Department at Bangalore, has been trying to catch the Union Secretary with a view to murdering him. However, not being able to find Mr. Roy, the police arrested a number of workmen and kept them in the lock-up at the police station for almost two weeks, where they were questioned under torture as to his whereabouts, and an attempt was made to make them sign a declaration to the effect that they and the Union Secretary and the workmen were responsible for the fire in the horses' stables at Bangalore. Having failed to extract any information by these methods, the police then told the workmen that if they did not hand over Mr. Roy, they themselves would be murdered without trace, in his place.
10. 219. The complainants, moreover, allege that a number of these workers are still being held in custody, without ever having been formally charged. Other workers, it is alleged, were also held in custody from 26 July 1969 to 5 August 1969, without ever being charged or brought before a court. According to the complainants, all these workers were brutally assaulted by the police and some were in very poor physical condition.
11. 220. In a communication dated 14 October 1969 the complainants allege that the Government of Mysore has still not formally preferred charges against the workers accused in the fire incident and that, whereas an accused facing a murder charge may be released on a bail of 2,000 to 3,000 rupees, the Government of Mysore has fixed bail for each of the accused at 5,000 rupees.
12. 221. It is further alleged that in order to make the Union very weak, the employers have dismissed some hundred senior workers from their posts and have replaced them by new hands, whose conditions of service stipulate that they shall not join a union.
13. 222. The complainants allege that the sole purpose behind all the anti-union measures described above is to crush the trade union so as to permit the employers to continue their exploitation of the workers.
14. 223. The complainants also ask the ILO to intervene in the present affair by setting up a commission of inquiry with a non-Indian chairman, to investigate the matters raised in the complaint and, in particular, that of the fire in the horses' stables.
15. 224. In its communication of 20 August 1970, and before answering the specific points raised by the Committee at its meeting in May 1970, the Government gives a brief synopsis of the events which led to the presentation of the complaint.
16. 225. The Government states that during the 1969 racing season Mr. Roy went to Bangalore and incited the grooms working for various trainers to go on strike with a view to preventing the Invitation Cup Race from being held. Despite the fact that on 18 July 1969 the grooms from Madras and Calcutta went on strike, the race took place. Moreover, on the same day, the strikers wrongfully detained the supervisor of the Bangalore Turf Club at the Palace Polo Grounds and, forming an unlawful assembly, caused damage to Club property as well as injuring a number of policemen. As a result, some twenty-eight persons were charged and arrested. The case is still sub judice.
17. 226. The Government also states that Mr. Roy conspired with eight other grooms to set fire to the stables and cause damage to the horses and the Palace Polo Grounds, that two of the conspirators did, in fact, set fire to the stables, causing the death of some thirty-seven horses and considerable material damage, and that criminal charges are now pending against Mr. Roy and eight others. Moreover, criminal charges are also pending against Mr. Roy for having, on 20 July 1969, unlawfully detained and assaulted a loyal groom named Sheepji.
18. 227. The Government declares that the action taken against Mr. Roy and the others had nothing to do with trade union rights but was the consequence of their criminal activities. Moreover, Mr. Roy and his companions were only charged and arrested after proper investigations had been made in accordance with the procedures established by law. In support of its contention that the arrests were made for criminal offences, the Government cites the complainants' letter of 14 May 1970, which refers to an appeal made to the Government of Mysore for the withdrawal of all pending criminal cases. In this connection, the Government declares that it cannot, for obvious reasons, withdraw criminal cases pending before the courts.
19. 228. In reply to the specific points raised by the Committee at its meeting in May 1970, the Government first of all dismisses as completely false the allegations according to which the management of the Bangalore Turf Club forbade the workers to carry on union business after work. The Government further points out that the grooms who went on strike on 18 July 1969 were employees of the trainers, not employees of the Bangalore Turf Club.
20. 229. As regards the allegations according to which Mr. Roy, the Secretary of the Royal Calcutta Turf Club Union, was arrested on 18 and 23 July 1969, the Government states that the first arrest took place as a result of a complaint made on 17 July 1969 by a woman to the effect that Mr. Roy had " outraged her modesty "; further that Mr. Roy was charged and arrested in accordance with the procedure established by law and that when he failed to appear at the most recent hearing of his case (on 16 June 1970), he forfeited his surety bond and cash security of 1,000 rupees, with the result that a warrant was issued against him. Similarly, the Government states that his arrest on 23 July 1969 was the consequence of criminal charges brought against him for having wrongfully detained and assaulted a loyal groom on 20 July 1969. The Government further states that the arrests were, on both occasions, the consequence of the fact that criminal charges had been laid against him and had nothing to do with his trade union activities.
21. 230. In respect of the allegations according to which the police forcibly expelled the striking workers from the Palace Polo Grounds on 18 July 1969, arrested some twenty-eight leading workmen, brutally assaulted others, took away the workers' cash and identity papers and impounded all their personal belongings on the premises, the Government reiterates its previous observations to the effect that the strikers had wrongfully detained and manhandled the supervisor of the Bangalore Turf Club, that the police had arrested some twenty-eight of the striking workers for having constituted an unlawful assembly and had brought them before the Court of the First City Magistrate. They were released on bail the same day, but the case was charge-sheeted and is still sub judice. The Government adds that the allegations made by Mr. Roy against the police are completely unfounded.
22. 231. The Government denies that any workers were ill-treated or kept in police custody without being charged or brought to trial. All accused persons were arrested on proper criminal charges and brought before the magistrate without delay and in accordance with the law. Moreover, at present, no worker is being held in police custody. The Government also repudiates as completely false the allegations according to which the Bangalore Turf Club dismissed approximately one hundred workers and replaced them by new hands whose conditions of service debar them from joining any trade union.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 232. The Committee notes that the Government's reply consists of an over-all denial of the complainants' allegations. More particularly, the Government denies that any of the police or judicial actions taken against Mr. Roy or the strikers were in any way connected with their trade union activities. According to the Government, the actions taken by the authorities against Mr. Roy and his companions were fully in accordance with the procedure established by law and were the consequence of their participation in activities of a criminal nature.
2. 233. While noting the Government's assurances that the police and judicial authorities have acted with complete propriety and that the actions taken against Mr. Roy and his companions were not connected with their trade union activities, the Committee feels bound to point out that, while the various criminal charges referred to in the complaint were, on the Government's own admission, registered in July 1969, no court has so far given its decision in any of these cases. In this connection, the Committee recalls that in cases where governments contended that the detention of trade unionists was due to unlawful or subversive activities and not to trade union activities, the Committee has considered that the question as to whether the matter is to be regarded as a matter relating to a criminal or political offence or a matter relating to the exercise of trade union rights is not one which can be determined unilaterally by the government concerned in such a manner as to prevent the Governing Body from inquiring into it. Further, the Committee has always emphasised that, where trade unionists are arrested for political offences or common-law crimes, the persons concerned should receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment by an impartial and independent judicial authority. Again, the Committee has invariably followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which were the subject of pending judicial proceedings, provided that these proceedings were attended by proper guarantees of due process of law, where such proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well founded. It has, moreover, been a practice of the Committee in such cases to ask for the texts of any decisions taken by the judicial authorities concerned, together with the reasons therefor.