Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 226, Juin 1983

1. 82. The Committee already examined this case at its November 1982 meeting when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body.' The Government has since replied in a communication dated 18 January 1983.
2. 83. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 84. The outstanding allegation in this case relates to the transfer of three named trade union leaders in the railway sector for carrying out normal trade union activities, namely protesting the employer's violation of safety rules. The Government was also requested to inform the Committee of the outcome of the Supreme Court case brought by certain public service employees against amendments to the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act which allegedly have the effect of changing the conditions of service of the employees in this sector without the consent of the unions concerned.

B. The Government's reply

1. 85. In its communication of 18 January 1983, the Government states that the case relating to the General Insurance Corporation of India is still pending before the Supreme Court.
2. 86. As regards the alleged transfers, the Government explains the background as follows: the employees in question instigated, misguided and led other employees of the wagon-repair shop to confine by force the deputy chief mechanical engineer of the workshop thereby preventing him from performing his normal duties; no recognised union was involved, but the situation had been precipitated by some individual workers or a wild-cat strike. According to the Government, the three employees moved a court of law against their transfer and a temporary injunction was initially granted; it has since been vacated by the court. The Ministry of railways categorically denies that the transfers had anything to do with legitimate and normal trade union activity of the employees concerned and it points out that, under the Rules of service, every railway worker is liable to transfer anywhere in India.

C. The conclusions of the Committee

1. 87. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the transfer of three railway workers was not due to their trade union membership or activities, but was linked to an incident involving the forcible confinement of a member of the management. In particular, the Committee notes that the three employees were initially granted a temporary injunction by the courts against their transfer, but that the injunction was subsequently removed.
2. 88. In view of the fact that the complainants - despite being given the opportunity to do so - have not substantiated their claim that the transfers were due to the trade union activities of the employees concerned, and in view of the detailed explanation provided by the Government on this aspect of the case, the Committee can only conclude that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
3. 89. As regards the alleged change in conditions of service of employees in the insurance sector introduced by legislative amendments, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the case relating to the General Insurance Corporation is still pending before the Supreme Court. It, accordingly, requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this case.