Interim Report - Report No 233, March 1984

Case No 1113 (India) - Complaint date: 31-JAN-82 - Closed

1. 463. The Committee has already examined this case on two occasions, the most recent being at its May 1983 meeting when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body [See 226th Report, paras. 192 to 204, approved by the Governing Body at its 223rd Session (May-June 1983)]. Since then, the Government has sent further comments in communications dated 4 October and 28 December 1983. At its November 1983 meeting [See 230th Report, para. 16, approved by the Governing Body at its 224th Session (November 1983)], the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government and requested the complainant organisation, the All India Loco Running Staff Association (AILRSA), to provide more detailed information as to the names of the 15 unionists of the railway sector who were allegedly dismissed, the zonal railways in which they worked and the specific reasons for their alleged dismissal. Information in this connection concerning 11 of the 15 was supplied in a communication from that organisation dated 8 February 1984.
2. 464. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) or the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 465. The outstanding allegations in this case relate to the detention under the National Security Act, 1980, of 12 named trade unionists in the railway sector in late 1981 and further detentions of 14 named unionists under the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 in connection with a one-day strike which took place on 19 January 1982, as well as the dismissal under Rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Rules of 15 trade unionists in the railway sector which took place in early 1983. The Government was requested to provide its specific observations on these two points.
2. B. The Government's reply
3. 466. In its communication of 4 October 1983, the Government pointed out that it could not reply specifically to the allegation concerning the dismissal of 15 unnamed railway workers unless it had further details, such as the names of the persons concerned, the zonal railways in which they were employed and the specific reasons for, which they were allegedly dismissed. The Committee, accordingly, in its 230th Report, requested this additional information from the national complainant organisation. No such information has been received to date.
4. 467. Referring to the detentions of 12 railway workers originally raised by the AILRSA in its communication of 31 January 1982, the Government, in its letter of 28 December 1983, stresses that the provisions of the National Security Act are used by the Government against anti-social and anti-national persons with a view to preventing them from indulging in prejudicial activities. According to the Government, the detention of trade unionists in late 1981 impugned in this case was not directed against any lawful and legitimate exercise of trade union activities. It also points out that the Act contains sufficient safeguards against misuse and ensures justice to the persons detained.
5. 468. The Government gives the following detailed information concerning each of the trade unionists in the railway sector who were allegedly detained under the National Security Act in 1981:
6. KARTAR SINGH enquiries have revealed that no person of this name was detained under the Act;
7. MR. SUKHLAL detained on 22 February 1981 because his activities had been prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services to the community; released by High Court Order on 21 September 1981 on the grounds that the material on which the detention order had been made was not supplied to the petitioner thereby jeopardising his right to make a representation;
8. NAWAL SINGH detained on 12 February 1981 because of his prejudicial activities; the Advisory Board constituted under the Act held on 26 March 1981 that there were sufficient grounds for his detention; detainee petitioned the High Court which ordered his release on 27 July 1981 on the grounds of non-supply of materials on which the detention order had been made within the prescribed period;
9. BASDEO OJHA detained for same reasons as above; District Magistrate revoked his detention order;
10. R.S. KHILNANI detained on 31 January 1981; released 20 March 1981 because the Advisory Board found insufficient grounds for his detention;
11. JARNAIL SINGH detained on 24 February 1981; the Advisory Board found that there were sufficient grounds for his detention but he was later released by order of the Supreme Court;
12. NEWTON ELIZA detained 28 August 1981; released 29 November 1981 by order of the Supreme Court on the grounds of late deposit of the relevant documents by the State Government;
13. BENU BONU NARASHING RAO, D.R. PADMANABHAM, K. RAJANNA, N. MAHALINGAM detained 5 February 1981 for instigating locomen to join the strike, preventing loyal workers from attending to duties and canvassing for the paralysation of the railway services; released 2 March 1981;
14. SHAIK ZAMALUDDIN detained 15 February 1981 for above reasons; released 2 March 1981.
15. C. Further information from the All India Loco Running Staff Association
16. 469. The complainant organisation supplies details concerning 11 of the 15 unionists of the railway sector who were allegedly dismissed under Rule 14 (ii) of the Railway rules. It states that the details concerning the four other dismissed employees will be sent as early as possible. The particulars available are as follows:
17. (1) Shri S.C. Das, Shunter, Sitarampur, Eastern Railway, Branch Secretary, AIBRSA for his leading a dharna (sit-down strike) against victimising some cleaners in his branch.
18. (2) Shri Arun Bhattachary, Guard, Alipurdawar, N.F. Railway, and All India Office Bearers of the All India Guards Council.
19. (3) Shri Tushar Guha Takhwatha, Commercial Clerk, N.F. Railway, New Coach Behar. Zonal Secretary, All India Commercial Clerks Association.
20. (4) Shri S.B. Kanji Lal, Trains Clerk, N.F. Railway, Siliguri, Zonal Secretary, All India Trains Clerks Association.
21. All three from Serial Nos. 2 to 4 were dismissed under Rule 14 (ii) for organisation and participating in solidarity action in favour of one day industrial token strike on 19 January 1982.
22. (5) Shri Arabinda Mukherjee, Asst. Driver (Electric), Eastern Railway, Sealdah, Treasurer, All India Loco Running Staff Association, Eastern Railway has been dismissed under rule 14 (ii) on false charge connecting him with a local movement of the passengers which caused a stoppage of train movement.
23. (6) Shri B.N. Rao, Diesel, Loco Inspector, South Central Railway, Ramagundam, Divisional President, All Loco Running Staff Association, South Central Railway, Secunderabad division.
24. (7) Shri K. Munuswamy, Driver "C" South Central Railway, Ramagundam Active Members of All India Loco Running Staff Association.
25. (8) Shri Syed Murtake, Driver "C" South Central Railway, Kazipet, Divisional Organising Secretary, All India Loco Running Staff Association.
26. (9) Shri Sandiah, D., Driver "C" S.C. Railway, Branch President All India Loco Running Staff Association, Ramagundam.
27. (10) Shri L. Cresswal, Driver "C" S.C. Railway, Kazipet Branch Joint Secretary All India Loco Running Staff Association.
28. (11) Shri P. Devadanam, P. Driver "C" S.C. South Central Railway, Kazipet, Joint Zonal Secretary, All India Loco Running Staff Association.
29. All six from Serial Nos. 6 to 11, have been dismissed for refusing to work independently for more than ten hours' duty in October 1981.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 470. The Committee notes that, apart from one person - apparently not detained in the first place - all the trade unionists in the railway sector cited by the complainant as detained under the National Security Act in 1981 were released within a few months of their detention either because insufficient grounds were found for their detention or because they were able to appeal to Supreme or High Courts on technical grounds. While appreciating that this demonstrates that there was no abuse of the legislation in these cases, the Committee must nevertheless point out that at least in five cases the Government admits that the detention orders were based on activities which were clearly of a trade union character, namely, instigating fellow workers to join a strike. The Committee has, on many occasions, drawn the Government's attention to the generally accepted principle that the right to strike is one of the legitimate means available to workers and their organisations for defending their occupational and economic interests. It follows, therefore, that emergency legislation, such as exists in India, aimed at anti-social or destabilising elements, should not be used to punish workers for exercising legitimate trade union rights. The Committee trusts that the Government will respect this principle in applying the legislation in question.
2. 471. The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied detailed information on the situation of the 14 trade unionists in the railway sector who were allegedly detained under the Essential Services Maintenance Act on 10 February 1982 - after the one-day strike which took place on 19 January 1982 - and who were allegedly requested by the courts to show cause why proceedings under the Essential Services Maintenance Act should not be instituted against them for instigating the strike. These unionists are: N.B. DUTTA, L.C. MAJHI, D.K. SENGUPTA, G.R. NAG, D. BARUA, A.K. RAO, N.G. PRASAD, D.D. DUTTA, N.G. NAG, RAMESWAR BANERJKEE [these names were transmitted to the Government by a communication dated 6 April 1982] and K. RAJANNA, S.K. JAMALUDDIN, N. MAHALINGAM and P.R. PADMANABHAN [these names were transmitted to the Government by a communication dated 11 May 1982]. The Committee noted in its first examination of this case [218th Report, para. 708, approved by the Governing Body at its 221st Session (November 1982)] that the latter four trade union leaders had, according to the AILRSA, been detained between 16 and 19 January 1982, but it is not known whether the ten former unionists successfully pleaded their cases before the courts or whether they were released subsequently. The Committee urges the Government to send, as soon as possible, its comments on this serious allegation which had been outstanding for almost two years.
3. 472. Lastly, the Committee notes that the complainant organisation, the All India Loco Running Staff Association, has supplied further detailed information concerning the dismissal of 11 of the 15 railway workers (the complainant states that information on the other four railway workers will be communicated as soon as possible). In view of this, the Committee considers that it must adjourn this aspect of the case until it has received the further information from the complainant and the Government's reply thereon.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 473. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
   • (a) As regards the 12 trade unionists in the railway sector who were detained under the National Security Act in 1981, the Committee, in view of the reasons given for some of the detentions, would draw the Government's attention to the importance of the principle of the right to strike and would stress that emergency legislation should not be used to punish the exercise of legitimate trade union rights. It notes that the trade unionists were released within a few months.
   • (b) As regards the detention of 14 named unionists in the railway sector under the Essential Service Maintenance Act in January 1982, the Committee urges the Government to send, as soon as possible, its comments on this serious allegation which has been outstanding for almost two years.
   • (c) The Committee adjourns the aspect of the case relating to the dismissal of 15 railway workers in early 1983 until it has the further information promised by the complainant organisation and the Government's reply thereon.