Definitive Report - Report No 172, March 1978

Case No 869 (India) - Complaint date: 06-DEC-76 - Closed

1. 36. The complaint of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Shramik Union was contained in a communication dated 6 December 1976.
2. 37. The complaint was transmitted to the Government which, in communications dated 9 May and 26 September 1977, sent its observations on the complaint.
3. 38. India has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1946 (No. 67) nor the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 39. The complainants alleged that the majority of the workmen at the grease factory of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. (a Government enterprise), being dissatisfied with the two unions to which they belonged, decided to resign from these unions and form a new union to be known as the Balmer Lawrie and Co. Shramik Union. The two unions to which these workers belonged were the Balmer Lawrie Employees' Association (affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress) and the Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union (affiliated to the National Labour Co-ordination council).
2. 40. The complainants stated that, on 1 July 1976, an application for registration in the prescribed form was presented under the Trade Union Regulation No. 3. Thereafter, continued the complainants, the inspector of the Registrar of Trade Unions verified the said application and certified that the union should be registered. The file was then submitted to the Registrar of Trade unions who, after many days had elapsed, informed the representatives of the applicant union that the Minister of Labour had decided that, since the applicant union had decided to affiliate with the Indian National Trade Union Congress, he would not permit the registration of a second union affiliated to the INTUC.
3. 41. At a general meeting on 7 November 1976 the membership decided not to seek affiliation with the INTUC and the Minister of Labour was informed accordingly, as was the Registrar of Trade Unions. Thereafter a number of meetings were held with the Registrar of Trade Unions in an attempt to obtain official registration of the union. At the time of presenting the complaint (6 December 1976) registration had still not been granted.
4. 42. The Government, in a communication dated 9 May 1977, stated that the State Government of West Bengal, which was concerned with the complaint, had intimated that the Registrar of Trade Unions had been advised to grant registration to the complainant union under the Trade Unions Act 1926 in a subsequent communication dated 26 September 1977, the Government confirmed that the complainant union had been duly registered under the Trade Unions Act on 14 March 1977.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 43. The Committee wishes to recall the general principle that workers should have the right to establish organisations without previous authorisation. If registration of a trade union confers on the organisation the basic rights enabling it to further and defend the interests of its members, the fact that the authority competent to effect registration has discretionary power to refuse this formality leads to a situation that is not different from that in cases whose previous authorisation is requested. With regard, in particular, to the affiliation of a trade union with a federation or Confederation, the Committee wishes to point out that a workers' organisation should have the right to join the federation and Confederation of its own choosing, subject to the rules of the organisations concerned, and without any previous authorisation. It is for the federations and Confederations themselves to decide whether or not to accept the affiliation of a trade union, in accordance with their own rules and by-laws.

44. The Committee notes with interest that the complainant organisation was finally registered on 14 March 1977 after an intervention by the State Government of West Bengal. In these circumstances, it recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.