Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 157, Juin 1976

1. 52. The Committee already examined this case at its session in May 1975 when it submitted an interim report which is reproduced in paragraphs 159-178 of its 151st report. This report was approved by the Governing Body at its 196th Session (May 1975).
2. 53. Pakistan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 54. It appears from the information supplied in the complaint and in the reply from the Government that, after the failure of the negotiations and attempts to achieve a conciliation, the Organisation of Karachi Port Trust Workers refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission and, despite the prohibition by the authorities, started a strike in the Port of Karachi. The police had intervened and arrested many trade union leaders, and the registration of the union was cancelled.
2. 55. The Committee recommended the Governing Body in May 1975 to call the attention of the Government to certain principles and considerations and to request it to submit, with the grounds adduced therefore, the text of the judgment handed down by the High Court regarding the cancellation of the registration of the union concerned.
3. 56. In a further communication, of 17 July 1975, the complainant said that it had learnt that the dispute between the Government and the Organisation of Karachi Port Trust porkers had been settled by negotiation and that it was prepared to withdraw the complaint if the Government was ready to confirm that information.
4. 57. In a letter received on 11 December 1975, the Government stated that the dispute had in fact been settled by bilateral negotiation.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 58. The desire shown by the complainant organisation to withdraw its complaint is worthy of the greatest attention but the Committee has always considered itself free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether these appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal was made in complete independence. It has pointed out that cases might exist in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it would be a result, not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose, but of pressure exercised by the Government against the complainants to that end.