Definitive Report - Report No 139, 1974

Case No 720 (India) - Complaint date: 16-AUG-72 - Closed

1. 28. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 16 August 1972 from the Hind Mazdoor Panchayat to the ILO. The complaint was transmitted to the Government, which forwarded its observations in a communication dated 11 May 1973.
2. 29. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 30. The complainants state that 22,000 workers engaged in the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, about 90,000 workers in various services and activities run by this Corporation including water supply, fire fighting services, hospitals and primary schools, and 44,000 workers in the Maharashtra State Transport Corporation declared an indefinite general strike in August 1972. The Government of Maharashtra banned the strike in accordance with the Essential Services Maintenance Act of 1971. The complainants allege that this law allows the authorities to declare any activity whatsoever to be an "essential service", and thereby to ban strikes in such areas of activity and to hand out prison sentences and fines to people who instigate such strikes or participate in them.
2. 31. The complainants add that leaders of the Congress Party stated that both the Party and the Government would do everything in their power to break the strike, that a number of employers concerned suspended or dismissed thousands of workers and that police proceeded to detain large numbers of workers and militants.
3. 32. In its reply, the Government confirms the outbreak of the strike and submits certain information concerning the claims made by the trade unions in question. The Government states that these unions made no attempt to gain satisfaction for their claims through collective bargaining, and that they did not adopt the legally available procedure for the settlement of disputes. Under these circumstances, and since the interruption of work in the services and enterprises mentioned was regarded as causing serious prejudice to the community, the Government felt compelled to declare the strike illegal, in accordance with Maharashtra's Essential Services Maintenance Act. Despite this measure, certain groups of workers continued the strike. About 713 workers engaged in the municipal Corporation Services and approximately 2,500 workers in the Bombay Municipal Corporation Transport Undertaking were arrested. No disciplinary action was taken against those who had merely participated in the strike. Disciplinary measures were taken, on the other hand, against individuals who had used threats or committed assault and battery. In any event, the strike was brought to an end on 24 August 1972, following discussions between the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and the Secretary-General of the Hind Mazdoor Panchayat. The agreement reached at that time stipulated that no retaliatory measures would be taken against the workers for their participation in the strike that all the persons arrested, except those who had committed acts of violence, would be released.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 33. The Committee has frequently expressed its view, in other cases where the right to strike has been prohibited in certain undertakings or services considered essential, that adequate protection should be given to the workers concerned to compensate them for the limitation thereby placed on their freedom of action with regard to disputes affecting such undertakings and services. More specifically, the Committee has pointed out that such restriction should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures, in which the parties can take part at every stage and in which the awards are binding in all cases on both parties; these awards, once they have been made, should be fully and promptly implemented. The Committee has also taken the view that its principle regarding the prohibition of strikes in essential services might be set aside if a strike were declared illegal in one or more firms which were not performing an "essential service" in the strict sense of the term.
2. 34. The Committee notes that in the present case, the strike was brought to an end by virtue of an agreement between the Government and the complainant organisation, it being laid down that no worker would be punished or penalised merely for having taken part in the dispute.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 35. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw attention to the principles expressed in paragraph 33 above, and to decide that this case does not call for further examination on its part.