Definitive Report - Report No 147, 1975

Case No 777 (India) - Complaint date: 08-JAN-74 - Closed

1. 201. The complaint of the Union Bank Employees' Association, West Bengal, is contained in a communication dated 8 January 1974. In further communications, dated 7 and 25 February and 20 March 1974, the complainants sent additional information in connection with the complaint. The complaint and additional information were duly transmitted to the Government, which sent its observations thereon in a communication dated 18 July 1974.
2. 202. 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. 203. In their communication of 8 January 1974 the complainants allege that Mr. Pratul Chandra Dutta, an executive member of the complainant organisation, President of the Chloride and Exide Battery (G) Workers' Union, and also Vice-President of the Studiographic Workers' Union, was, at 2 a.m. on 22 October 1973, arrested by the police at his residence. Later that day he was charged in Sealdah Court with what the complainants call "completely false and fabricated charges, which were only meant for his arrest".
2. 204. The complainants go on to state that, on 15 November 1973, an order releasing Mr. Dutta on bail was issued by the Court, but before this order could be carried out, the Government of West Bengal detained Mr. Dutta under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act with effect as from 6 December 1973. Mr. Dutta was detained under this Act, without trial, only to prevent his release on bail, state the complainants. The complainants add that, during the period he was detained, Mr. Dutta received a copy of the reasons for his detention as issued by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, on 6 December 1973. A copy of these charges is supplied by the complainants as well as a copy of a detailed reply thereto by Mr. Dutta. The complainants state that they protested to the Government of West Bengal against Mr. Dutta's arrest and detention but were unsuccessful in obtaining his release.
3. 205. In their communication dated 7 February 1974 the complainants state that, on 1 February 1974, Mr. Dutta was unconditionally released in accordance with a government order to that effect dated 30 January 1974, a copy of which is supplied by the complainants.
4. 206. In a further communication, dated 25 February 1974, the complainants explain that Mr. Dutta took up his duties in the bank on 2 February 1974 but that the management, in a letter to him dated 20 February 1974 (a copy of which is supplied by the complainants) refused his request that the full period of his detention be treated as special leave with full pay. This, states the complainants, is intended to torture Mr. Dutta further by depriving him of wages and other benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been detained. According to the complainants, the bank is only prepared to make an adjustment to treat part of the period of his detention as leave which was due to him.
5. 207. In their communication dated 20 March 1974 the complainants transmit a booklet giving full information about the arrest and detention of Mr. Dutta, and the action taken by the complainants on his behalf.
6. 208. The Government, in its communication dated 18 July 1974, explains that the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, provides for the detention of persons in certain cases for the purpose of the maintenance of internal security and matters connected therewith. Under this Act the Central or State Government may, if it is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to do so, make an order directing that such person be detained. When such an order is made by a State Government it shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made. The Government continues that in order to safeguard against the arbitrary and unjust use of the powers of detention, the Act provides that when a person is detained, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not less than five days from the date of detention, communicate to the detainee the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford to him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.
7. 209. The Government adds that the Act, as a further measure of protection to the citizen, provides for the setting up of advisory boards, each consisting of three persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as judges of a High Court. The grounds on which the order are made and the representations, if any, are placed before the Advisory Board within thirty days from the date of detention under the order. The Advisory Board must consider the material placed before it and submit its report to the Government within ten weeks of the date of detention. If, adds the Government, the advisory board reports that, in its opinion, there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith.
8. 210. The Government explains that Mr. Dutta was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act on 6 December 1973 on allegations that he was participating in activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He was given full opportunity to make a representation against the order, and in accordance with the Act, the order and the representation made by Mr. Dutta were placed before the Advisory Board. After considering the matter and hearing Mr. Dutta in person, the Board communicated its opinion that there was no sufficient cause for his detention. Mr. Dutta was accordingly released immediately from detention on 1 February 1974.
9. 211. The Government emphasises that the detention of Mr. Dutta was in no way connected with his trade union activities, as is clear from the grounds of detention which concern a threat to the public peace and order. The Government adds that there is no basis for Mr. Dutta's plea that his detention was mala fide and that the charges brought against him were groundless an intended to curb his civil liberties and trade union rights.
10. 212. In connection with the claim made by Mr. Dutta to the Bank of India for special leave with full pay in respect of the detention period, the Government states that this is a matter for the management of the Bank and the Government cannot take any action in the matter. It is open to Mr. Dutta, adds the Government, to seek redress against any decision of the management under the appropriate machinery set up under the Industrial Disputes Act.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 213. The Committee notes that Mr. Pratul Chandra Dutta was first arrested on 22 October 1973, and subsequently held in detention under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, from 6 December 1973 to 1 February 1974, when he was released, no sufficient cause for his detention having been found by the Advisory Board. According to the written charge, dated 6 December 1973, brought against Mr. Dutta, he was accused of actions which were said to have constituted a serious threat to the maintenance of public order in that on 30 March 1973 he, along with others, who were armed, formed an unlawful assembly and attacked a rival group of persons with intent to commit murder. He was further accused of a similar offence which is said to have taken place on 5 April 1973. The Committee observes from the representation made by Mr. Dutta that he attacks both charges as being vague and unspecific, and challenges, in particular, the allegation that, in the first charge, he is stated to have belonged to one named group whereas in the second charge he is stated to have belonged to another group of a different name. In addition, Mr. Dutta claimed to have an alibi in respect of the circumstances described in the first charge. On the basis of these representations, and following a personal hearing of Mr. Dutta, the Advisory Board was of the opinion that no grounds for his detention existed.
2. 214. The Committee notes, from all the information before it, that Mr. Dutta was detained for having allegedly committed offences outside the scope of normal trade union activity. Mr. Dutta's plea that the charges were groundless was subsequently upheld and he was released accordingly. In this connection, the Committee, as it has done previously in similar cases, wishes to point out that the detention by the authorities of trade unionists concerning whom no grounds for conviction are subsequently found is liable to involve restrictions on trade union rights, and that governments should take steps to ensure that the authorities concerned have instructions appropriate to eliminate the danger of detention for trade union activities.
3. 215. As to the allegation that the Bank of India has refused to consider the period of Mr. Dutta's detention as being special leave in respect of which he should be paid in full, the Committee considers that, in the present circumstances, this allegation does not involve any question of infringement of trade union rights and that this is a matter which would normally require to be resolved through the relevant disputes procedures available in such matters.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 216. In all these circumstances, and with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to note that Mr. Dutta has now been released;
   • (b) to point out to the Government that the detention of trade unionists concerning whom no grounds for conviction are subsequently found is liable to involve restrictions on trade union rights, and to request the Government to consider what instructions could be given to the authorities concerned in order to eliminate such a danger; and
   • (c) to decide, for the reasons given in paragraph 215 above, that the allegation concerning Mr. Dutta's salary during his period of detention does not involve any question of infringement of trade union rights.