Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 19, 1956

1. 50. At its 128th Session (Geneva, March 1955), the Governing Body, by adopting the 15th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, approved the recommendations submitted to it by the Committee with regard to certain complaints presented by the Burma Trade Union Congress and the Trade Union International of Workers in the Textile and Clothing Industries (Warsaw) against the Government of Pakistan in communications dated 12 August and 10 September 1954 respectively, the latter being supplemented by a further communication dated 12 November 1954.
2. 51. In accordance with these recommendations, the Governing Body, firstly, approved the finding of the Committee, with respect to the allegations formulated concerning riots and killing of workers at the Narayanganj Jute Mills, that it was impossible, on the basis of the information available, to determine accurately whether the exercise of trade union rights had been violated but that it considered that it should emphasise, as in various earlier cases, that the institution, by the action of the government concerned, of an independent inquiry is a particularly appropriate method of ascertaining the facts and attributing responsibility when disturbances of such importance have occurred and involved loss of human life, and decided to draw the attention of the Government of Pakistan to the above observations, and, secondly, approved the Committee's recommendation that the allegations in the complaints concerning the disbanding or dissolution of trade unions and the arrest of unspecified trade union leaders and workers did not call for further examination. The Governing Body also noted that the Government would be requested to furnish further information with regard to the remaining allegation made in these complaints that certain trade union leaders, namely Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim, Mohammed Afzal and Mohammed Ghayoor, had been arrested, as it had limited itself in its original reply dated 6 November 1954 to the statement that the persons in question had been arrested for subversive activities and not for genuine trade union activities. This further information was requested by the Director-General in a letter addressed to the Government of Pakistan on 16 March 1955.
3. 52. A third complaint was addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 13 October 1954 by the World Federation of Trade Unions and transmitted by the Secretary-General to the I.L.O. This complaint was communicated by the Director-General to the Government of Pakistan by a letter dated 3 December 1954.
4. 53. At its 12th Session (May 1955), the Committee, noting that the Government had not yet furnished the further information requested with respect to the alleged arrests of certain trade union leaders and had also not presented its observations on the complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions, again adjourned its examination of the case. At its 13th Session (November 1955), the Committee noted that the Government, in a communication dated 17 August 1955, had furnished further information with respect to the said alleged arrests but had still not presented its observations on the complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions, and adjourned its examination of the case until its present session. Observations on the complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions were presented by the Government of Pakistan in a communication dated 20 February 1956.
5. 54. The analysis below is confined to the allegations concerning the arrests of certain trade union leaders still outstanding before the Committee (referred to in the complaint of the Trade Union International of Workers in the Textile and Clothing Industries), to the allegations contained in the complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions and to the observations of the Government with respect to these different allegations.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations concerning the Arrests of Certain Trade Union Leaders
  55. 55 In the complaint presented by the Trade Union International of Workers in the Textile and Clothing Industries, it is alleged that Mohammed Ghayoor, General Secretary of the Karachi Textile Workers' Federation, was arrested on 7 July 1954, as were, on 24 July 1954, Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Afzal, respectively President and General Secretary of the Pakistani Federation of Trade Unions. The World Federation of Trade Unions, in addition to alleging the arrests of these three persons, states further that, also in July 1954, the authorities arrested Ariz Ahmad Khan, President of the Karachi Trade Union Federation, and Rana Habibur Rahmen, President of the Lyalltur Peasants' Committee, together with 20 other peasants, all the arrests being made pursuant to the Pakistan Public Security Act.
• Allegations concerning Military Action
  56. 56 It is alleged that since May 1954 the police and military have organised a reign of terror in East Pakistan. On the pretext afforded by the incidents at the Narayanganj Jute Factories (considered by the Committee in its 15th Report), the Central Government has stationed military detachments in all industrial undertakings.
• Allegation concerning Meetings
  57. 57 It is alleged that in Dacca, Karachi and elsewhere, section 144 of an Act prohibiting all meetings and assemblies and public processions has been put into application.
• Allegation concerning a Regional Conference
  58. 58 It is alleged that a regional conference of Lyalltur peasants has been prohibited.
• Allegation concerning Investigation Officers
  59. 59 It is alleged that the governmental authorities are providing for the establishment, in all industrial undertakings in which over 5,000 workers are employed, of investigation officers with the function of punishing and dismissing militant trade unionists, and that in small undertakings this responsibility will be entrusted to the managements, who will have full power to refuse work to members of trade unions.
• Allegation concerning the Replacement of Trade Unions By Social Bureaux
  60. 60 The World Federation of Trade Unions states that according to its information action is being taken to suppress the trade unions and replace them by social bureaux, which would deprive the workers of their right to choose their trade union in freedom.
• Allegation concerning Ransacking and Sealing of Trade Union Premises
  61. 61 The complaining organisation states that in West Pakistan the headquarters of several trade union organisations have been ransacked and sealed by the authorities.
  62. 62 The World Federation of Trade Unions refers in its complaint to the findings of the Committee in a previous case relating to Pakistan, and declares that the arrests of trade unionists, the seizure of trade union premises by the Government, the establishment of social bureaux under government patronage and the simultaneous removal of trade union leaders are flagrant violations of trade union rights ; it demands that representations be made to the Government to ensure the immediate liberation of trade union members and officers detained under emergency legislation ; and to ensure that trade union premises shall be handed back to the trade unions and that unions shall be authorised to function without any governmental interference.
• ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FURTHER REPLIES (Communications dated 17 August 1955 and 20 February 1956)
• Allegations concerning the Arrest of Certain Trade Union Leaders
  63. 63 In reply to the allegations of the Trade Union International of Workers in the Textile and Clothing Industries and of the World Federation of Trade Unions that Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Afzal, respectively President and General Secretary of the Pakistani Federation of Trade Unions, and Mohammed Ghayoor, General Secretary of the Karachi Textile Workers' Federation, were arrested in July 1954, the Government presents the following observations.
  64. 64 Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Afzal, together with Rana Habibur Rahmen (named in the complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions), were detained under orders of the Punjab Government. Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Afzal were members of the Central Committee of the Pakistan Communist Party and, apart from being a regular critic of government policy, Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim once announced at a Communist Party meeting, according to the Government, " that the Party had decided to bring about revolution in the country and that it was prepared to support any person or party who aspired to overthrow the present cruel Government ". In February 1954, Mohammed Afzal delivered an " objectionable speech " against the Pakistani-American Military Aid Pact. Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Afzal were arrested in July 1954 following the imposition of a ban on the Communist Party. They filed petitions for habeas corpus, and the High Court in Lahore released them on bail in January 1955. Rana Habibur Rahmen, having been acquitted by the courts on two charges under the Penal Code, is now standing trial on three more criminal charges and also under section 14 of the Goonda Act (" an Act designed to deal with bad characters "), as a result of complaints against him received by the police. The Government adds that the allegation that 20 peasants were detained under the Public Security Act is wholly unfounded.
  65. 65 Mohammed Ghayoor and Aziz Ahmed (named in the complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions), both members of their provincial trade union committee, are Communists and, according to the Government, " were responsible for engineering a series of unwarranted strikes with a view to paralysing the industrial progress of Pakistan ". They formed Communist Party cells in their trade union organisations, and their activities " had become prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order and security of the State and as such they were detained ... not because they were trade union workers but because they were staunch Communists ". Aziz Ahmed is now facing trial for instigating members of a procession to violence.
  66. 66 In its communication dated 20 February 1956 the Government states that, while it is its policy to encourage healthy trade unionism, at the same time criminals and subversive elements cannot be granted immunity simply because they are in some way ostensibly connected with a trade union in Pakistan. Persons detained have been detained under the Public Security Act because of their "anti-Pakistan and anti-State activities ". They camouflaged their illegal and subversive activities by trade unionism and were a potential danger to the peace and tranquillity of the country. The Government declares that detention under the Public Security Act is subject to scrutiny by an Advisory Board which consists of High Court Judges ; the persons detained are furnished with the grounds of their detention and informed of their right to make representation against the orders for their detention. The cases of all persons detained under the Security Act are reviewed every six months and the persons informed of the results of the review. " Apart from these procedural safeguards ", states the Government, " the persons can make an application for habeas corpus to a court and have their orders for detention cancelled." The Government considers that the Public Security Act provides legal safeguards which are a guarantee against any misuse of powers under the Act, and that it is therefore incorrect to say that the persons detained under the Act were detained arbitrarily.
• Allegations concerning Military Action
  67. 67 The Government states that there has been no military reign of terror in East Bengal. Section 92-A of the Government of India Act was promulgated in East Bengal only with a view to checking the increasing lawlessness which had disrupted the peace and tranquillity of that province. The military had nothing to do with administration. As soon as normal conditions were restored administration of the province was vested in a representative Government. The Government describes these allegations as false and unwarranted.
• Allegation concerning Meetings
  68. 68 The Government does not comment on the alleged application of section 144 of the Act prohibiting meetings, assemblies and public processions.
• Allegation concerning a Regional Conference
  69. 69 The Government denies that any regional conference of Lyalltur peasants was prohibited.
• Allegation concerning Investigation Officers
  70. 70 The Government states that it has taken no such action as the institution of investigation officers and that the allegation is obviously incorrect.
• Allegation concerning the Replacement of Trade Unions by Social Bureaux
  71. 71 The Government states that it has taken no such action as the replacement of trade unions by social bureaux and that the allegation is obviously incorrect.
• Allegation concerning Ransacking and Sealing of Trade Union Premises
  72. 72 The Government states that the allegation is obviously incorrect, as it has taken no such action as the sealing of trade union premises.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 73. In the consideration of this case, the Committee has borne in mind the fact that the Government of Pakistan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
   • Allegations concerning the Arrest of Certain Trade Union Leaders
2. 74. It is alleged that four trade union leaders, namely Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim, Mohammed Afzal, Mohammed Ghayoor and Aziz Ahmed, and the leader of the Lyalltur peasants, Rana Habibur Rahmen, together with 20 other peasants, were arrested in July 1954, pursuant to the Public Security Act. No precise reason is alleged as having occasioned the arrests and, though the trade union offices of the persons concerned are given, no specific allegation is made to the effect that they were arrested for trade union activities ; it is simply stated that they were arrested and detained under the Public Security Act. The Government denies the arrest of the 20 unnamed peasants, but admits the detention of the five persons named above, stating that the arrests were in no case due to the trade union activities of the persons concerned but to their criminal and subversive activities. The Government states that the courts ordered the release on bail, after the filing of petitions for habeas corpus, of Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Afzal and that Rana Habibur Rahmen has been acquitted on two criminal charges but is still to be tried on three charges under the Penal Code and also under the Goonda Act, while Aziz Ahmed is being prosecuted for inciting members of a procession to violence.
3. 75. The Committee notes the considerable similarity between these allegations and the allegations of arrests of trade union leaders pursuant to security legislation which it considered when examining Case No. 49 relating to Pakistan. In fact, Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Afzal, two of the persons mentioned in the present case, were among the persons referred to in the earlier case as having been detained on a previous occasion. In connection with the previous case it was alleged, as now, that certain trade union leaders were detained under the security legislation, without it being specifically stated that their trade union activities occasioned their arrest, and the Government denied that the arrests were connected with trade union activities, stating that they were due to the illegal and subversive activities of the persons concerned. In the previous case the Government explained, as it does in the present case, that detentions are subject to scrutiny by an Advisory Board consisting of High Court Judges, and to reviews every six months. In the present case the Government makes the further clarification that persons detained can file petitions for habeas corpus with the courts, this having led to the courts ordering the release on bail of Mirza Mohammed Ibrahim and Mohammed Afzal. The Committee has no information as to the periods elapsing between the date of the detention and the making of application for habeas corpus and between the making of such application and the decision of the court thereon.
4. 76. On the basis of facts substantially similar to those now before it the Committee concluded, in the previous case relating to Pakistan, that the question of the arrests then made did not involve any actual exercise of trade union rights, but noted, nevertheless, that the Public Security Act of Pakistan allowed on its face arrest and detention without trial and expressed again the view that it had previously expressed in connection with a similar law in India to the effect " that measures of preventive detention may involve a serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights which it would seem necessary to justify by the existence of a serious emergency and which would be open to criticism unless accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period ". The Committee emphasised that " it should be the policy " to ensure the right of a detained person " to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment ". In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, the Governing Body decided to express the hope that the Government would take all appropriate measures to ensure that its Public Security Act should not be applied in such a manner as to impair the guarantees of trade union rights provided for in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and to suggest that the Government might find it desirable to re-examine the Public Security Act with a view to avoiding its being applied in a manner inconsistent with the principles of these Conventions.
5. 77. While noting that there is no specific allegation that the arrests complained of arose out of the exercise of trade union rights and that in the case of two persons at least the courts have upheld their right, when they have been detained under the Public Security Act, to file petitions for habeas corpus and have ordered the release on bail of the persons concerned, the Committee considers that it should again draw attention to the principles and conclusions which it approved in the previous case relating to Pakistan and which are referred to in paragraph 76 above, and recommends the Governing Body to express once again the hope that the Government will take all appropriate measures to ensure that its security legislation is not applied in such a manner as to impair the guarantees of trade union rights provided for in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948, and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949, both ratified by Pakistan.
   • Allegations concerning Military Action
6. 78. It is alleged by the complainants that there has been a military reign of terror in East Pakistan and that military detachments have been stationed in industrial undertakings. The Government states that there has been no reign of terror, that at no time were the military entrusted with administration and that, while action was taken to deal with a lawless situation, normal conditions were subsequently restored.
7. 79. The Committee considers that there is no evidence before it to show that these allegations relate to any question involving the exercise of trade union rights and recommends the Governing Body to decide that they do not call for further examination.
   • Allegation concerning Meetings
8. 80. It is alleged that section 144 of an Act prohibiting meetings, assemblies and public processions has been put into application. This allegation appears to refer to section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers a magistrate to direct an order to a particular individual, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place, requiring the person concerned " to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, if such magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray ". Where such an application is received, the magistrate shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order ; and, if the magistrate rejects the application wholly or in part, he shall record in writing his reasons for so doing. No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof ; unless, in cases of danger to human life, health or safety, or a likelihood of a riot or an affray, the Provincial Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs. The Government makes no comment.
9. 81. In view of the fact that the complainant does not show that specifically trade union meetings have been affected, the Committee, while drawing the attention of the Government to the importance which it has always attached to the fact that the right of meeting constitutes an essential element in trade union rights, considers that the allegation is too vague to permit of it being examined on its merits and recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
   • Allegation concerning a Regional Conference
10. 82. It is alleged that a conference of Lyalltur peasants was prohibited. This is categorically denied by the Government.
11. 83. The Committee considers that this allegation, unexplained by any further details, is too vague to permit of its being considered on its merits, and recommends the Governing Body to decide that it does not call for further examination.
    • Allegations concerning Investigation Officers and the Replacement of Trade Unions by Social Bureaux
12. 84. The complainant declares that the governmental authorities " are providing " for the establishment of investigation officers in industrial establishments employing over 5,000 workers, with the function of punishing and dismissing militant trade unionists, and that in small undertakings this function " will be " entrusted to the managements. The complaining organisation adds that " according to its information action is being taken " to suppress the trade unions and replace them by social bureaux. The Government declares that no such action has been taken.
13. 85. The Committee notes that the complainant does not state that any of these measures have been taken but simply refers to contemplated action by the Government with respect to the institution of investigation officers and to action which " according to its information is being taken " to replace trade unions by social bureaux. While the Government denies that any such measures have been taken, the Committee notes that, while the complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions referring to these alleged pending measures was presented as long ago as 13 October 1954, no further evidence has been furnished by the complainant to show that any of these measures, if they were ever contemplated, have been put into application.
14. 86. In these circumstances the Committee considers that no evidence has been offered to show that the alleged measures have been adopted, and that any infringement of trade union rights in this connection has occurred, and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that the allegations do not call for further examination.
    • Allegation concerning Ransacking and Sealing of Trade Union Premises
15. 87. The complainant alleges that in West Pakistan the headquarters of several trade union organisations have been ransacked and sealed by the authorities. The Government makes no comment on the alleged ransacking but states that no trade union premises have been sealed.
16. 88. The Committee notes that the complaining organisation does not refer to any specific trade union as having had its headquarters ransacked and sealed, nor does it give any dates or other information which might make it possible to consider any specific case.
17. 89. The Committee considers that this allegation is made in such general terms that it is too vague to permit of any examination being made of it on its merits and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.