Interim Report - Report No 181, June 1978

Case No 881 (India) - Complaint date: 07-JUN-77 - Closed

1. 181. The complaint of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), was contained in a communication dated 7 June 1977. The complaint was transmitted to the Government which forwarded its observations thereon in a communication dated 10 February 1978.
2. 182. 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. 183. In its communication of 7 June 1977 the CITU stated that there had virtually been a total suppression of the trade union rights of nearly 3,000 workers in the multinational corporation, ACC-Vickers-Babcock Ltd., Durgapur, West Bengal. The company management, continued the complainants, had indulged in unfair labour practices as a result of which normal trade union activity had become almost impossible.
2. 184. The CITU referred, in particular, to the dismissal of 54 workers over a period of six years. Following a general strike in the Durgapur township in August 1970 the services of the General Secretary of the AVB Employees' Union, Durgapur, Mr. Shri Biswanath Chowdhury, and the Vice-President of that union, Mr. Shri Jahar Ghosh, were terminated after their release from jail on 8 January 1971. Although more than six years had passed, stated the complainants, their case was still pending before the tribunal and they were still out of a job.
3. 185. The CITU added that on 8 February 1971 and 19 April 1971, despite a directive issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner of West Bengal, the management terminated the services of 42 executive Committee members and leading activists of the AVB Employees' Union.
4. 186. On 6 January 1976 the Conciliation Officer and Additional Labour Commissioner held that the applications filed by the company for the approval of these termination orders under section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act were not maintainable.
5. 187. The complainants further stated that seven other employees were dismissed for having protested against the vindictiveness of the management and for attempting to obtain the reinstatement of those who had been previously dismissed. These persons were: D.K. Kundu, K.K. Dutta, C.C. Banerjee, Md. Nasiruddin, Hemanta Mandal, D.K. Lahiri and Asutosh Banerjee. Orders for the reinstatement of two of these workers (Hemanta Mendal and D.K. Lahiri) were issued by the Ninth Tribunal but, instead of implementing these orders the management appealed to the High Court. In addition, continued the complainants, the management terminated the services of a further three workmen viz. Subhash Ray, Nirmal Dey and B.K. Mukherjee. The case of B.K. Mukherjee, stated the complainants, was pending before the tribunal.
6. 188. The complainants went on to state that, as a result of the vindictive attitude of the management, day-to-day trade union activity had become a crime in the company. In addition, continued the complainants, the office of the union had been ransacked and was being occupied by anti-social elements whose acts were instigated by the management.
7. 189. In its reply to the allegations the Government states that the State Government of West Bengal, which is concerned with the matter, has taken the necessary action. The Government explains that, as regards the 54 workmen referred to in the complaint, the position is as follows: the issue relating to the dismissal of 42 workmen was referred to adjudication in June-July 1977; the cases of three workmen are pending adjudication before the tribunal; in respect of four other workmen the management has appealed to the High Court following the rejection of its application under section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act for confirmation of termination orders; no industrial dispute has been raised against the dismissal of four workmen; and one workman is reported to have left the company and has received all his dues.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 190. The Committee notes that the main allegation of the complainants relates to the dismissal by the ACC-Vickers-Babcock management of some 54 workers at the industrial plant in Durgapur consequent upon a strike by the AVB Employees' Union which was called in 1970. The Committee notes that the majority of these dismissals took place in January, February and April 1971. A further allegation concerns the taking-over and occupation of premises normally occupied by the union by persons acting in collusion with the company.
2. 191. The Government has transmitted certain information concerning the dismissed workers. No observations, however, have been made concerning the occupied trade union premises.
3. 192. As regards the dismissal of 54 workmen the Committee notes that 45 of these cases are now pending adjudication. In four other cases the High Court is seized of an appeal at the instance of the company against a decision of the Additional Labour Commissioner not to maintain orders of dismissal issued by the company against the workmen. In four other cases no industrial dispute has been raised and in one remaining case the worker in question has left the company having received all benefits due to him.
4. 193. As regards most of the workers who were dismissed in 1971 the Committee notes that their cases are pending adjudication and that these cases were referred to adjudication only in June-July 1977. The Committee has often indicated that excessively lengthy proceedings can result in a denial of justice and has drawn attention to the importance which it attaches to expeditious proceedings for the examination of cases concerning dismissals which could result from trade union activities.
5. 194. The Committee would also request the Government to provide information concerning the premises previously occupied by the union and which, according to the complainants, are now being occupied by other persons.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 195. In these circumstances, and with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (i) to draw the attention of the Government to the principle contained in paragraph 193 above concerning the importance of expeditious proceedings in cases involving dismissals for trade union activities and to request the Government to keep the Committee informed as to the outcome of the proceedings of the cases referred to above;
   • (ii) to request the Government to provide information concerning the premises previously occupied by the company union and which, according to the complainants, are now occupied by other persons; and
   • (iii) to take note of this interim report.