Definitive Report - Report No 177, June 1978

Case No 837 (India) - Complaint date: 26-JAN-76 - Closed

1. 42. This case vas examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association at its sessions in February and November 1977 on each of which occasions it presented an interim report to the Governing Body (165th Report, paragraphs 85-109 and 172nd Report, paragraphs 253271).
2. 43. 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. 44. The Committee recalls that a substantial number of the allegations made by the complainants referred to the detention of trade unionists without trial or the issue of warrants for the arrest of trade unionists. In this connection, the Committee, when it last examined the case, noted with interest the Government's statement that all those persons who had been taken into preventive detention had been released and any proceedings withdrawn following the revocation of the state of emergency on 21 March 1977, except in certain cases involving violent acts or economic offences.
2. 45. The Committee, however, in view of the gravity of the allegations brought forward by the complainants as well as the specific nature of the evidence adduced by them in support of these allegations, considered that it would be appropriate, in the light of the changes that had taken place, to request the complainants to communicate any additional or more recent information that might be available regarding the present situation of those trade unionists who were alleged to have been detained or in respect of whom arrest warrants had been issued. Another aspect of the case related to the dismissal of workers both in the public and in the private sectors. The Committee had noted with interest that the situation of these persons was being reviewed and that the Government proposed to issue very shortly appropriate instructions to all concerned in this regard. In addition, the Government had stated that state governments had been requested to review all cases where the services of employees had been terminated and that a directive had been issued by the Ministry of Labour to reinstate all employees who had been discharged or dismissed as a result of absence consequent upon their detention under the emergency regulations.
3. 46. The Committee requested the Government to supply additional information on the outcome of these review procedures which the Committee considered to be a positive step on the part of the Government to restore a situation in which trade unionists could exercise their legitimate functions freely and without fear of reprisals. At the same time, the Committee requested the complainant organisation to provide any comments it might wish to make concerning the over-all situation in the light of the action that was being taken by the Government to review cases of dismissal.
4. 47. As regards the remaining questions on which the Government had not provided its observations (viz. alleged police abuses, protection of anti-social elements, threats, ill-treatment to induce workers to leave the complainant union or not to join it, the closing down of trade union premises, confiscation of documents or materials, refusal to allow trade union meetings or admit claims, favouritism in the choice of organisations to be represented on various bodies or in official decisions regarding the referral of disputes to the courts), the Committee requested the Government to communicate its observations on these matters. No further information or comments have been received from the complainant organisation concerning the matters raised by the Committee. On the other hand, the Government, in communications dated 19 December 1977 and 10 February 1978 transmitted additional observations relating to the complaint.
   • Additional observations received from the Government
5. 48. As regards the allegation that Mr. M.V. Subbaiah, General Secretary of the South Central Railway Employees' Union, had been suspended, charged with violation of the Railway Servants' Service Conduct Rules, and refused access to the documents necessary for his defence, the Government gave a brief account of the facts of the case and added that the disciplinary authority, after considering the statement of defence of Mr. Subbaiah, had ordered an inquiry to be conducted. After the officer appointed to carry out the inquiry had been changed at the request of Mr. Subbaiah, the latter filed a writ with the High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad, to restrain the inquiry officer from proceeding with the inquiry until the documents requested by him were given to him. This petition, according to the Government, was dismissed by the High Court on 26 November 1976. The Government added that the departmental inquiry against Mr. Subbaiah was still in progress.
6. 49. In reply to the allegation that about 30,000 casual workers in the railways were dismissed for their participation in a strike in May 1974, the Government pointed out that out of the 24,500 workers whose services were so terminated, a large number were taken back, leaving 5,161 workers out of service towards the end of February 1977. In April 1977, continued the Government, orders were issued for taking back these 5,161 workers and 4,689 had taken up their duties. Of the remaining 472, the whereabouts of 110 were not known, 54 had died, and 4 could not be taken back for medical reasons. Accordingly, stated the Government, this left 304 workers who had not resumed their work although intimation has been sent to them that they would be taken back. In its communication of 10 February 1978 the Government stated that, in May 1977, instructions had been issued to central government departments and state governments to the effect that all employees dismissed or removed from service under the Constitution for their alleged links with certain political parties should be reinstated immediately. As for industrial undertakings, 969 employees had been reinstated.
7. 50. The Government also pointed out that the allegation that no action had been taken on the dispute raised by the Southern Railway Construction Workers' Union on the question of interim relief and other demands of workers was not correct. There had been some delay, the Government admitted, but the parties had been informed on 8 February 1976 that the case was not fit for adjudication. The Government added that the matters in the dispute were governed by certain recognised principles applicable in the railways throughout India, and the Government had not found any strong reason to refer the dispute to arbitration.
8. 51. The allegation that verification of the membership of the CITU was not undertaken so as to prevent that organisation from participation in tripartite bodies was incorrect. The Government explained that general verification of membership of central trade union organisations is undertaken for purposes of representation on national tripartite bodies, Committees, etc., and not for recognition purposes. The Government pointed out that the CITU had been included in the general verification of membership of central trade union organisations as on 31 December 1972 but the verification could not be proceeded with as certain organisations failed to co-operate. As for representation on the national tripartite body, i.e. the Indian Labour Conference, the Government stated that the criterion for representation on this body was that laid down by that Conference in 1959. Whatever changes should be made in this regard had been under consideration by a tripartite Committee - on which the CITU had been represented - which had only recently submitted its report.
9. 52. The Government went on to state that the National Apex Body, which functioned during the emergency, was a bipartite and not a tripartite body. Following the emergency, a Tripartite Labour Conference was held - in May 1977 - in which the CITU and other organisations of an all-India character participated. The CITU, continued the Government, was also represented on the Tripartite Committee on Comprehensive Industrial Relations Law which was set up by the Government in July 1977, as well as on the Committee on Workers' Participation in Management and Equity, set up on 23 September 1977.
10. 53. The Government transmitted observations on a series of allegations of discriminatory acts against workers affiliated with CITU unions. As regards the allegations concerning individual cases of termination of services the Government submitted details concerning a number of these cases. According to this information, in one case the person concerned has been reinstated, in another payment in lieu of notice was effected, and in three other cases the matters at issue have not been finally settled.
11. 54. The complainants had also alleged that certain state governments had refused to refer some cases to adjudication. In this connection, the Government stated that the allegation that the Government of Haryana had refused to refer "about 15 disputes" to adjudication was referred to the State Government. That Government has replied that in the absence of specific cases it is not in a position to comment. The Government of Uttar Pradesh intimated that the management of J.K. Rayon, Kanpur, did not retrench 600 workmen and union officials as alleged. In fact, continued the Government, no retrenchments took place in 1976 and up to 15 February 1977. The Government explained that, in 1975, 60 workmen of the Power House were retrenched because of closure of the Power House. The Government of Uttar Pradesh also referred to the large number of cases taken up for conciliation from 1975 to 1977. The Government added, as regards the allegations concerning the failure of conciliation proceedings in Rajasthan, that these allegations were not specific. However, the State Government has indicated that, during 1976, nearly 50 failure reports regarding disputes raised by CITU members were received by the Government. Of those, continued the Government, references were made in 28 cases, 19 cases were rejected and 3 were pending with the State Government for further clarification.
12. 55. The Government also submitted observations concerning the allegations that conditions of service had been changed arbitrarily. According to information received from the Government of Rajasthan the management of Aditya Mill Ltd. had proposed increasing the workload but following the admission of the dispute to conciliation the management suspended this proposal. The Government of Uttar Pradesh indicated that in pursuance of a settlement dated 6 February 1976 between the management of Messrs. J.K. Rayon, Kampur, and the works union (affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress) the workload of some categories of workmen was increased subject to a responding agreed pay increase. According to the Government of West Bengal there was no current dispute over the payment of a dearness allowance to workers in the Ritz Continental Hotel, Calcutta. As regards the employees of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation the State Government pointed out that under the Calcutta State Transport Regulations, employees were subject to medical examination and could be dismissed if they were found to be below the required standard of fitness. Drivers over 45 years of age were examined by a medical board since the unfitness of a driver could cause danger to the lives of commuters. As for fixing the retirement age at 60 in respect of employees of the Calcutta Corporation, the State Government explained that, since no age limit for retirement from the Corporation had been fixed, the Corporation, in consultation with the Calcutta Municipal Service Commission, and with the sanction of the State Government, framed regulations, which came into effect on 1 January 1976, fixing the age of retirement of staff. The Government added that the Central Government and also state governments have the power to retire employees particularly after the age of 50 years, in the public interest.
13. 56. As regards the allegations concerning dismissals at the Maya Engineering Works, Calcutta, the Government pointed out that the Government of West Bengal had indicated that the Maya Engineering Workers' Union had raised an industrial dispute regarding the ten workmen who had been dismissed on 25 January 1976. The matter had been referred to conciliation. The Government stated that the representatives of the management did not attend most of the joint conferences convened by the conciliation officer. An adjudication regarding scales of pay, categorisation of workmen and bonuses for workmen of the foundry department was pending before the Fourth Industrial Tribunal. According to the Government, the President of the Union appeared before the Conciliation Officer on 25 September 1976 and stated that, in view of the pending adjudication proceedings, he would take up the cases of the ten workmen, as well as the cases of four additional workmen whose services were terminated, with the Fourth Industrial Tribunal under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Government stated that no action was, therefore, necessary by the conciliation officer. The Government also added that, as regards the alleged use of force against the workmen and terrorisation by anti-social elements, the union had lodged two complaints with the police on 9 and 12 February 1976. These complaints, stated the Government, were investigated but could not be substantiated.
14. 57. Allegations had also been made concerning attacks by anti-social elements, under the patronage of the Congress Party, on workers who refused to pay dues to a rival union set up in the National Rubber Manufacturing Company. The Government stated in this connection that, according to the report received from the State Government, there were four unions in the company, controlled by the CITU, the INTUC, Labour Cell, and CPI respectively. Two of these unions collected funds by selling coupons to help laid-off workers. On one occasion, stated the Government, there was a scuffle when workers refused to pay. These workers, however, paid later, the Government stated.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Conclusions of the Committee
  58. 58 The Committee has taken note of the additional information and explanations supplied by the Government. It notes, in particular, that this information relates mainly to the allegations concerning the dismissals of workmen and the measures taken to review their cases. Certain information has also been provided concerning some of the other allegations of discriminatory action against the CITU and its affiliates on which the Government had not yet supplied its observations.
  59. 59 The Committee observes that the complainants have not availed themselves of the opportunity to provide, as requested by the Committee, any additional or more recent information that might be available regarding the present situation of those trade unionists who were alleged to have been detained or in respect of whom arrest warrants had been issued. Nor have the complainants responded to the request made by the Committee to them to provide any comments they might wish to make concerning the over-all situation in the light of the action that was being taken by the Government to review cases of dismissal.
  60. 60 As regards the allegations concerning the detention of trade unionists or the issue of warrants for their arrest, the Committee recalls that the Government had stated that all the persons who had been taken into preventive detention had been released and proceedings withdrawn following the revocation of the emergency on 21 March 1977 except in certain cases involving violent acts or economic offences. In view of this information, and in the absence of any further comments from the complainant organisation the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination on its part.
  61. 61 In connection with the allegations relating to the dismissal of central or state government employees, as well as other workers employed in various industries the Committee notes from the detailed information provided by the Government that reinstatement of a large number of workers has taken place and that government instructions were issued in May 1977 for the reinstatement of employees who had been dismissed from service for their alleged links with certain political parties. In particular, the Committee notes with interest that practically all of the 30,500 casual railway workers who had been dismissed for their participation in strike action in May 1974 have been reinstated. As for the numerous other allegations that had been made concerning the dismissal of individuals the Committee observes that for the most part, these cases have either been settled in the meantime by reinstatement or other means or are still the subject of proceedings.
  62. 62 In addition, it would appear to the Committee from the information now available that the allegations relating to the prevention of the CITU from participating in tripartite bodies are no longer valid. The Committee notes, in this connection, that the complainant organisation was represented on the tripartite Committee which examined the criteria for representation on the Indian Labour Conference, a national tripartite body, and that it participated, in May 1977, in the Tripartite Labour Conference. According to the Government the CITU had also been represented on a tripartite Committee on Comprehensive Industrial Relations Law, set up by the Government in July 1977 and on another Committee on Workers' Participation in Management and Equity set up on 23 September 1977.
  63. 63 As regards other allegations on which the Government had not already provided its observations, the Government has transmitted explanations and information made available by a number of state governments and relating, in particular, to those allegations that concerned arbitrary changes in the conditions of service of workers belonging to the CITU and attacks on members of the complainant union or its affiliates by anti-social elements at the instigation of the ruling Congress Party. Despite the fact that the Government has not been in a position to supply detailed observations on all the specific allegations made, it would appear to the Committee from the information made available that often cases have either been settled or the machinery available for the redress of grievances has been used. In addition, police investigations appear to have been undertaken in cases where unions or their members have been the victims of aggression.
  64. 64 From all the information available it appears that the circumstances which prevailed during the state of emergency have now changed. As the Government itself has pointed out, the action taken within the context of the state of emergency - which was lifted on 21 March 1977 has been reversed in most cases. The Committee would express the hope that all trade unions may, in a climate of normalcy, be able to pursue their legitimate activities with the fullest possible freedom.

65. The Committee, in these circumstances, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.