Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 236, Noviembre 1984

Caso núm. 1113 (India) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 31-ENE-82 - Cerrado

1. 124. The Committee has already examined this case on three occasions, the most recent being at its February 1984 meeting when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body. [See 233rd Report, paras. 463-473, approved by the Governing Body at its 225th Session (February-March 1984).] Since then the Government has sent further information in a communication dated 10 May 1984.
2. 125. 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. 126. The outstanding allegations in this case (which has been under examination since November 1982) relate to detentions of 14 named trade unionists under the Essential Services Maintenance Act,' 1981 in connection with a one-day strike which took place on 19 January 1982, and the dismissal, in early 1983, under Rule 14(ií) of the Railway Rules of 15 trade unionists (details concerning 11 of whom were supplied by the All-India Loco Running Staff Association in a communication of 8 February 1984 and reflected in paragraph 469 of the Committee's 233rd Report) in the railway sector. Although the complainant organisation had stated in that communication that the names and details of the four other dismissed railway employees would be sent as early as possible, no such information has been received

B. Further information supplied b the Government

1. 127. In its communication of 10 May 1984, the Government states that the following ten persons were provoking the workers not to attend work on the eve of "Bharat Bandh" (national strike day). 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. According to the Government an inquiry was initiated in the court of the executive magistrate at Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar and notices were issued to these persons requesting them to appear in court on 2 February 1982 to explain why legal action should not be initated against them for their alleged provocative acts, namely intimidating the workers from attending to their normal duties. However, on 20 February 1982, the railway authorities informed the court that they did not wish to proceed with the cases as no major incident had occurred on the national strike day. Accordingly, the inquiry was dropped by the executive magistrate. The Government maintains that there was therefore no question of any arrest, detention or release of these ten persons under the Essential Services Maintenance Act.
2. 128. As regards the remaining four persons (K. RAJANNA, S.K. JAMALUDDIN, N. MAHALINGAM and P.R. PADMADABHAN), the Government states that the national campaign committee of the non-INTUC central trade unions called upon workers to observe a country-wide general strike on 19 January 1982 in all industrial establishments and, on 17 January 1982, the police in the southern railways district received information that agitators had assembled with the aim of attacking the railway station and terrorising the local employees of the railways. The local police therefore rushed to the spot and discovered some persons, including the above-named four individuals, armed with weapons such as sticks and stones, proceeding towards the railway station. The four named persons, along with the other persons, were arrested and criminal case No. 6/82 was opened under section 151 of the Criminal Procedures Code on the grounds of imminent danger to public peace. According to the Government, they appeared for interrogation before the Taluk (sub-district) executive magistrate at Gooty on 18 January 1982 with a request for remand. In accordance with the orders of the magistrate they again appeared before the court the following day and were released on bail. Further action in the case was dropped on 25 February 1982. The Government maintains that the allegation that these four persons were arrested under the Essential Services Maintenance Act on 16 January 1982 and detained until 19 February 1982 is therefore not correct.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 129. The Committee must first note as regards the alleged dismissal of 15 trade unionists in the railway sector that the Government has sent no further information in addition to its original reply that 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) needed to be furnished by the complainant organisation. Nevertheless, the Committee notes from the information supplied by the complainant concerning 11 of the 15 dismissed unionists that only four persons were allegedly dismissed for activities connected with their trade union membership, that is to say, Mr. S.C. Das, branch secretary of the All-India Branch Railway Staff Association, who was allegedly dismissed for leading a sit-down strike in his branch of the Eastern Railways, Mr. Arun Bhattachary, office bearer of the All-India Guards Council who was allegedly dismissed for organising and participating in a solidarity action in favour of the one-day strike of 19 January 1982, Mr. Tuchar Guha Takhawatha, zonal secretary of the All-India Clerks Association, who was allegedly arrested for the same reason as was Mr. S.B. Kanji Lal, zonal secretary of the All-India Train Clerks Association. The other reasons for dismissal given by the complainant union were refusal to work independently for more than ten hours a day and involvement in a movement of passengers which caused a stoppage of train movement. The Committee regrets that the complainant organisation did not supply detailed information concerning all the 15 persons who were allegedly dismissed and that the Government was not in a position to reply to the information supplied by the complainant in its communication of 8 February 1984.
2. 130. As regards the four dismissed workers concerning whom it does have information, the Committee would point out that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal and that this protection is all the more important in the case of trade union officials who, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, must have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate that they hold from their trade unions. [See, for example, 211th Report, Case No. 1053 (Dominican Republic), para. 163; 226th Report, Case No. 1118 (Dominican Republic), para. 45.]
3. 131. As regards the alleged detention of 14 trade unionists under the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981, the Committee notes the Government's reply that ten of the 14 individuals were never arrested or detained under the legislation in question since the railway authorities had not proceeded with any case against them. It also notes that, according to the Government, four other workers were arrested by the local police when found to be carrying weapons and proceeding towards railway premises and that a criminal case, No. 6/82, was instituted against them under section 151 of the Criminal Procedures Code. It appears that they were arrested on 17 January 1982 and released on bail two days later and that further action in the case was dropped on 25 February 1982. In view of the Government's detailed reply and since the complainant union has provided no substantial proof as to the motives behind the alleged arrest of the 14 trade unionists mentioned in its complaint beyond the fact that they were requested to be present in court proceedings following a one-day strike which had taken place on 19 January 1982, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

• The recommendations of the Committee
  132. 132 In these circumstances, the committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
       • (a) As regards the four workers who were alleged to have been dismissed for their participation in a one-day strike in January 1982 in the railway sector, the Committee recalls that workers should enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, and that such protection is all the more important in the case of trade union leaders who, in order to fulfil their functions independently, should enjoy the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced as a result of such acts.
       • (b) The Committee considers that the remaining aspects of the case do not call for further examination.