Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 348, November 2007

Case No 1890 (India) - Complaint date: 29-MAY-96 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 116. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns dismissal, transfer and suspension of members of the Fort Aguada Beach Resort Employees’ Union (FABREU) following a strike, and the employer’s refusal to recognize the most representative union for collective bargaining purposes, at its November 2005 session where the Committee requested the Government to rapidly take all appropriate measures to ensure that the pending issues, specifically, the transfer of Mr Sitaram Rathod, the dismissal of Mr Shyam Kerkar and the suspension of Mr Mukund Parulekar, as well as the right of the FABREU to bargain collectively, are resolved [see 338th Report, paras 176–179].
2. 117. In its communication dated 20 April 2007, the Government indicates that the management of the Fort Aguada Beach Resort has settled the cases of Messrs Sitaram Rathod, Shyam Kerkar and Mukund Parulekar by signing on 2 August 2006, a full and final settlement under sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the said settlement, the three workers were paid rupees (Rs) 9,50,000/-, 7,00,000/- and 6,50,000/-, respectively. Therefore, the Government requests that the present case against India be treated as closed.
3. 118. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government with regard to the three workers who suffered the consequences of a strike carried out in November 2004. The Committee regrets, however, that the Government provides no information on whether the enterprise management has recognized the FABREU for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee recalls from the previous examinations of this case that an agreement was signed in October 1995 between the management and a newly formed organization, Fort Aguada Beach Resort Workers’ Association, thus recognizing it as the sole bargaining agent in the company and derecognizing the FABREU. The Committee had concluded from the evidence at its disposal that no doubts existed that the FABREU was the most representative at the Fort Aguada Beach Resort and had urged the Government to take appropriate conciliatory measures to obtain the employers’ recognition of the FABREU for collective bargaining purposes [see 307th Report, paras 366–375]. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate whether the FABREU is currently recognized by the enterprise management as a collective bargaining agent and participates, through negotiation of collective agreements, in regulation of terms and conditions of employment at the Fort Aguada Beach Resort.