Definitive Report - Report No 86, 1966

Case No 424 (India) - Complaint date: 10-DEC-64 - Closed

1. 12. The complaint of the Miners' Trade Unions International is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 10 December 1964. The Government of India furnished its observations on the complaint by a letter dated 12 April 1965.
2. 13. 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

• Allegations relating to Anti-Union Discrimination
  14. 14 The complainants allege that repressive and discriminatory measures are taken against officers and members of unions affiliated to the Mineworkers' Federation of India (All India Trade Union Congress). One of each operates at the Bankola mine and the Babisole mine. These are referred to by the complainants as " Red Flag Unions ".
  15. 15 It is alleged that the management of the Bankola mine, West Bengal, is trying to crush the Red Flag Union. Mr. B. Kurmi, a member, is alleged to have been brutally attacked on 12 September 1964 and then falsely charged with theft by the manager of the mine, Mr. Sharma. Mr. Sharma is alleged to have led, on 17 September 1964, a crowd of gangsters who set fire to workers' dwellings. The police arrived and arrested some 30 officers of the Red Flag Union but, states the complainant, the manager himself was arrested on 19 September. A week later the General Secretary and Committee Secretary of the Coal Miners' Federation of West Bengal were arrested, but later released on bail. Since then, it is alleged, the management has recruited criminal elements to harass the miners.
  16. 16 At the Babisole mine, West Bengal, it is alleged, about 100 officers of the Red Flag Union have been victimised. The management is said to be reducing production by dismissing permanent workers and refusing them their legal dues. Nine officers of the union are said to have been falsely charged in four legal actions. An armed police picket has been placed in the mine. It is alleged that when the management complains about a worker he is arrested at once by the police before inquiries are started, but that complaints by workers are rejected by the police. One member, Mr. Nandi, is alleged to have been arrested when he tried to lodge a complaint with the police.
  17. 17 The situation is alleged to be the same at the Girimint, Adjay, New Jemehary Khas and Chapui Khas mines.
  18. 18 The Government declares that all the mines referred to are in the throes of severe labour indiscipline because of the struggle for recognition between rival unions.
  19. 19 At the Bankola mine 400 of the 2,000 workers belong to the Colliery Mazdoor Congress (affiliated to the Hind Mazdoor Sabha), which has been recognised by the management. The union affiliated to the All India Trade Union Congress (A.I.T.U.C.) has about 150 members and has not been recognised. Rivalry between the two unions has caused open disorder and the police have had to intervene. The Government says that a similar situation prevails in other mines.
  20. 20 In September 1964 the A.I.T.U.C union complained that persons hired by the Bankola colliery management had attacked workers' quarters and leaders of the union on 12 September. This was found to be untrue. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Mines investigated the alleged attack on Mr. Kurmi but found no evidence. A charge against him of having stolen a drill machine is pending in the court. As regards the setting on fire of workers' dwellings on 17 September 1964, about 55 workers of different groups (not 30 union officers, as alleged) were arrested and several cases connected with this incident are pending in the courts. To avoid future incidents, the manager of the mine was transferred from the district. The allegation relating to the recruitment of criminal elements to harass the miners, says the Government, has been found to be baseless and no complaint on this point has been made by the Hind Mazdoor Sabha union.
  21. 21 As regards the alleged victimisation of officers of the A.I.T.U.C union at the Babisole colliery, the Government states that the only complaint received was one relating to Mr. H. Singh. It was found that he had been assaulted by an aggrieved workman. The A.I.T.U.C union withdrew its complaints.
  22. 22 As regards the alleged lay-off of permanent workers, the Government states that two seams were closed from 8 September to 14 September 1964 and an open-cast quarry was closed from 8 to 19 September. On investigation it was found that the two seams were closed by order of the Mines Department because of violations of the Mines Act. The quarry was closed because water had rendered it unsafe. Most of the 130 workers affected were given alternative work as opportunity arose and only 15 had to be retrenched. The management had failed to pay minimum guaranteed wages to the workers concerned, as required by the Coal Award of 1956, and this matter had been taken up by the Regional Labour Commissioner.
  23. 23 Although no complaint had been received from the union regarding the arrest of Mr. Nandi (see paragraph 16 above), the Government states that a complaint charging him with obstructing the manager and director of the Babisole mine is pending before a court.
  24. 24 While pointing out that the complainants have not cited any specific cases to support their allegations regarding other collieries, the Government states that in September 1964 the A.I.T.U.C union lodged a complaint of terrorisation of workers at the Chapui Khas colliery. On investigation it was found that three members of the union had beaten up a member of the rival union and had been suspended for ten days. Two other complaints of assault of union leaders are under investigation.
  25. 25 It would appear that in the collieries concerned an inter-union struggle is being waged, often with violence, between members of two rival unions of miners. Certain cases of violence and arson have given rise to criminal court proceedings. So far as these cases are concerned no sufficient evidence appears to have been furnished to prove that the employers as such were implicated in what took place. So far as the closure of certain seams is concerned, this appears to have been done for justifiable reasons not connected with the exercise of trade union rights. The only provable fault on the part of the employers appears to have been failure to pay minimum wages to certain workers who were laid off and this, according to the Government, is being dealt with in accordance with the legal procedure laid down. In these circumstances, the Committee does not consider that the complainants have furnished sufficient proof that violations of trade union rights have been committed by the employers, the police or other authorities.
  26. 26 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Food Situation
  27. 27 It is alleged that essential foodstuffs have disappeared from the market in the mining areas and been cornered by black marketers, who charge the workers exorbitant prices. Miners have to absent themselves and lose wages in order to find food. Employers agreed to open shops with reasonable prices but, it is alleged, no mine owners have done so. There are a few co-operative shops in the mines but they cannot get adequate supplies.
  28. 28 The Government states that there has been a shortage of grain for some time and the rise in commodity prices has caused hardship to the whole population as well as the miners. So far as the miners are concerned account was taken of this in the Coal Award of 1956 and two wage increases were accorded by the Coal Mining Wage Board in the last two years. In 1962 the Indian Labour Conference evolved as a relief measure a scheme to open fair-price stores in larger undertakings. Two hundred and sixty co-operative stores have been set up in the mining areas and the question of supplies is being given constant attention.
  29. 29 These allegations raise questions related to difficulties of food supply being experienced in India which do not appear to be directly related to the exercise of trade union rights, and the Committee accordingly recommends the Governing Body to decide that they do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Bonus Payments
  30. 30 The complainants allege that mine owners in the private and public sectors have never paid a production bonus, although the Government accepted the decision of the Bonus Commission that mine owners should pay a bonus to the miners. The Mineworkers' Federation of India has threatened direct action if bonuses are not paid to India's 4 million miners.
  31. 31 The Government states that under the statutory system prevalent in coal mines bonus is paid on the basis of quarterly attendance. In December 1961 the Government appointed a Bonus Commission to work out norms governing bonus payments based on profits in all industries. In January 1964 the Commission made its recommendations, which were accepted by the Government, with some modifications, in September 1964. Details of proposed legislation to give effect to the Commission's recommendations in the form accepted were discussed by the Standing Labour Committee in December 1964 and March 1965, but no agreement was reached between employers and workers. The Government has decided to proceed with the enactment of the Bonus Bill, taking account of the different views expressed.
  32. 32 It does not appear that, either under the law or under any binding award or agreement, employers are bound to pay a production bonus, although legislation is contemplated, and at present bonuses are paid on the basis of quarterly attendance. In these circumstances the complainants have not shown that the non-payment of a production bonus has infringed trade union rights or any acquired rights of the workers.
  33. 33 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 34. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.