Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 279, Novembre 1991

1. 315. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights against the Government of India in a communication dated 25 September 1990.
2. 316. The Government sent its observations on the allegations in communications dated 7 and 13 May 1991.
3. 317. India has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 318. In its communication of 25 September 1990, the CITU alleges that Convention No. 87 has been violated by certain anti-union practices carried out by the management of the Fluid Control Research Institute (FCRI), a government-owned establishment working under the Ministry of Industry in the State of Kerala.
2. 319. According to the complainant, for many years the FCRI Employees' Association had pressed for restructuring of the Institute as an autonomous body under the central Government of India with a view to improving productivity and breaking the link with another public sector unit, a certain M/s Instrumentation Ltd. The complainant encloses copies of letters written to various authorities in pursuance of this issue. The Government finally agreed to separate the two companies, but the FCRI management was annoyed with both this decision and the Association's role in pressing for it.
3. 320. The complainant alleges that the employer commenced a vindictive campaign against the Assocation using the following measures: management refused to accept registered letters sent by the union and individual employees (a copy of an envelope with the postal markings "refused" is supplied, but not the letters themselves or any indication as to their contents); on 30 August 1990 Mr. C.G. Subramanian, General Secretary of the Association, was suspended on various charges, including the sending of letters to government authorities containing false allegations against the FCRI management. The complainant requests action to persuade the FCRI management to withdraw this unjustified suspension order against the principal officer of the Employee's Association and to force it to abide by the principles of freedom of association.

B. The Government's reply

1. 321. In a letter dated 7 May 1991, the Government reports that the FCRI closed down as of 3 October 1990 due to an indiscipline and agitation programme launched by staff members at the insistence of Mr. Subramanian and others. Subsequently, at a meeting held by the Sub-Collector of Palakkad, both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the District Collector for a decision which would be binding on both parties. The District Collector decided that the suspension order should be revoked, and the Institute reopened as of 1 November 1990. The disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Subramanian are, however, still proceeding. He had earlier moved the High Court of Kerala to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the FCRI management from terminating his services. The High Court dismissed his petition on the ground that the petitioner's apprehension that his services would be terminated was imaginary and observed that "the petitioner cannot prevent the respondents from initiating departmental action in accordance with the law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice".
2. 322. In a letter dated 13 May 1991, the Government explains that, according to the report received from the FCRI management, Mr. Subramanian joined the Institute as a trainee in January 1985 and was immediately sent abroad for a training period of one year. Upon his return, instead of concentrating on the research assigned to him, he devoted his time to organising employees against the management and behaved in an undisciplined manner. On 15 October 1987 there was an incident which resulted in him being asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for having burst into the office of the Institute's Joint Director without permission and behaving in a manner unbecoming an officer; a copy of the memorandum in question is supplied. He apologised for his misconduct (a copy of his handwritten apology is supplied) and no action was taken against him. He was later promoted to the post of Senior Research Engineer but continued to neglect his duties and indulged in activities detrimental to the maintenance of morale and productivity of the Institute. On 22 February 1990 the management issued a warning to him to improve his performance within two months, failing which action would be taken to dispense with his services. From the copy of the assessment sheet provided with the Government's reply, it appears that Mr. Subramanian's shortcomings included lower than expected performance levels, the bringing of baseless allegations against officials of other departments, wasting time by sending numerous notes on issues that could have been discussed verbally, engaging in unhealthy activities such as inciting other staff members against the Institute's interests.
3. 323. According to the Government, Mr. Subramanian did not mend his ways. He formed an association and presented a charter of demands. He wrote letters to the ministry officials making allegations against the FCRI management. On 26 April 1990 he was served with another memorandum conveying the management's displeasure with his lack of interest in research, negligence of duty and pursuance of activities detrimental to the Institute's interests; he was warned that if he failed to correct his behaviour he would be given notice to seek other employment in the next three months. If, however, he expressed his regret over his past actions, the employer would be happy to continue its association with him. He then unsuccessfully petitioned the High Court of Kerala, following which, on 30 August 1990, the Institute issued the charge sheet commencing internal disciplinary proceedings and suspended him during the inquiry into the charges, since his presence would have been likely to jeopardise the conduct of the inquiry.
4. 324. Protesting against this action on the part of the management, 15 engineers and four administrative staff - all members of the Employees' Association - started a sit-in strike in the Institute as of 1 October 1990, shouting slogans and threatening non-striking workers. The situation became unruly when a scientist, Mr. Prabhakaran Nair, and a senior clerk, Mr. Bahuleya Menon demanded payment during the strike period from accounts and personnel officers. Mr. B. Menon was suspended and the Institute closed on 3 October for an indefinite period so as to avoid such incidents. On 18 October an agreement to investigate the events that led to the lockout was signed between the management and the striking employees before the Sub-Collector of Palakkad, and his report to the District Collector recommended that both suspension orders be revoked. This was done and the Institute reopened on 1 November 1990.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 325. The Committee notes that this case involves alleged anti-union measures on the part of the management of the Fluid Control Research Institute, a government-owned research body in the State of Kerala following certain successes achieved by the FCRI Employees' Association in relation to the Institute's structure.
2. 326. The specific incident in question was the suspension on 30 August 1990, after many written warnings, of the General Secretary of the FCRI Employees' Association on the grounds, inter alia, of neglect of duty, writing baseless complaints to ministry officials about the FCRI management and "unhealthy" activities with the employees detrimental to the interests of the Institute. Although no details appear on the charge sheet as to what might be these "unhealthy" activities, the Committee notes that following an inquiry agreed to by the parties after 17 days of industrial action (a sit-in strike and a lockout over the period 1 to 18 October 1990), the suspension measures have been rescinded, the union leader involved has apparently returned to work and the FCRI is functioning normally.
3. 327. It thus appears to the Committee that the matter was settled to the parties' satisfaction some weeks after the CITU filed the present complaint, i.e. by late October 1990 and, in other circumstances, this case might not have merited any further in-depth examination. Given, however, the coincidence of the disciplinary inquiry and suspension measure against Mr. Subramanian coming around the time he had organised an employees' association in the Institute, and the vagueness of the management's dissatisfaction with his employee-related activities, the Committee would recall in general that no person should be prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of his or her trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities (Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 538).
4. 328. The Committee notes that the internal disciplinary proceedings are continuing against this trade union leader. It hopes that the above principle will be kept in mind in the final decision and requests the Government to verify that the proceedings clarify whether the measure in question was anti-union in nature. It asks the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the internal inquiry.