Definitive Report - Report No 238, March 1985

Case No 1232 (India) - Complaint date: 02-SEP-83 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

39. On 2 September 1983 the BOGL Employees' Unity Centre, the MAMC Employees' Unity Centre and the Small Industries Workers' Union presented a complaint of infringements of trade union rights against the Government of India. The Government replied in a communication dated 27 October l984.
40. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.087) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.098).

41. The complainants allege that the management of Bharat Ophthalmic Glass Ltd. - a government undertaking - refuses to negotiate with its employees' registered representative, the BOGL Employees' Unity Centre. They also allege that the management of the Mining and Allied Machinery Corp. - another government undertaking - refuses to negotiate with the four registered unions which represent its employees. Lastly, they state that the Durgapur Small Industries Association - made up of small industry employers - is acting in the same manner. 42. According to the complainants, the statutory conciliation authority of West Bengal favours employers and does not take the initiative to redress workers' grievances although it is authorised to do so under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The complainants add that this state of affairs was brought to the attention of the various ministers of West Bengal concerned and the central Government, but no favourable action has yet been taken.

43. In its communication of 27 October 1984, the Government states that the joint complaint is vague and too general. According to the State Government of West Bengal, the allegation has been denied by the two public sector managements as well as by the employers' associations. In addition, it appears that none of the complainant unions has taken its grievance to the appropriate industrial relations authority under the Industrial Disputes Act before approaching the ILO. The Government points out that the state Labour Directorates have not been approached by the unions, and that no specific instances of denial of trade union rights by the managements have been cited by the complainant unions.
44. The Government concludes that, given the lack of factual evidence and given that the available machinery for settlement of grievances has not been utilised, no worth while purpose would be served by pursuing the case further.

45. The Committee regrets that it has not received from the complainants the detailed and precise information that was requested from them in support of their complaint. It has also taken note of the Government's reply to the complaint that was transmitted to it.
46. The Committee would recall in general terms, as it has done in past cases concerning the alleged refusal of an employer to bargain collectively with particular recognised workers' organisations, that collective bargaining, if it is to be effective, must assume a voluntary character and not entail recourse to measures of compulsion which would alter the voluntary nature of such bargaining. (See, for example, 211th Report, Cases Nos. 1035 and 1050 (India), paragraph 110.) It accordingly considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
47. As regards the allegations that the statutory conciliation authority of West Bengal has not taken initiatives to settle workers' grievances, the Committee can only conclude that, in the absence of detailed information on this aspect of the case, it is not in a position to pursue its examination thereof.

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