Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 234, Junio 1984

1. 300. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) presented complaints of violations of trade union rights against the Government of India in two communications of 12 and 13 August 1983; it supplied additional information in communications dated 20 and 30 September 1983. The Government supplied its observations in a communication of 22 February 1984.
2. 301. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or tile Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 302. In its initial communications, the CITU alleges that during a strike in February 1983 by 5,01)0 employees of tile J.K. Synthetics Ltd. company in Rajasthan, over tile illegal retrenchment Of about 2,400 employees, police were brought in to use violence and arrest the' strikers. The background to tile strike is as follows. during negotiations in September 1982 the company and tile local union arrived at an understanding under which there would be no retrenchments due to technological improvements and, if any workmen became superfluous, alternative employment would be made available to such workers, the amount and nature of such alternative employment being discussed with the union beforehand. In late January 1983 during a lay-oft of the entire workforce on tile ground of lack of power tile company issued retrenchment notices to 2,400 workmen; in mid-February the company recalled the non-retrenched workers to their duties; these workers refused to recommence work until the question of retrenchment was decided in accordance with the September 1982 understanding and with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. 303. The CITU tried to settle the dispute by petitioning the Federal Government Minister of Labour on 15 May 1983 and the Prime Minister on 21 May 1983, and its Rajasthan Branch approached tile State Government in an effort to solve tile strike. however, according to tile CITU, on 5 August 1983 a large contingent of state police broke up tile sit-in strike, confiscated tile strikers' property and arrested about 60 people. Immediate interventions were made by tile CITU to. various government authorities which resuIted in a visit to the company premises on 7, 8 and 11 August by a team of. Parliamentarians. According to the CITU, tile team's report on tile situation was critical of police action, in particular tile coercion of workers to resume work on pain of imprisonment. The official figure of arrested persons is 108, although the CITU claims that over 500 workmen have disappeared, either being detained in distant prisons or kept inside tile factory as forced labour.
3. 304. According to the CITU, members of its Rajasthan branch union commenced a hunger strike on Il August 1983 in protest at tile police violence at the textile company and the following day its General Secretary (Mr. Prem Krishan Sharma) and 11 of his colleagues were arrested because of this.
4. 305. On 20 September 1983, tile complainant submitted additional information to the effect that the State Government of Rajasthan had, on 28 August 1983, taken action against the employer for violation of section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act through reference of the retrenchment dispute to a tribunal. The Government Order of that date (copy supplied by the complainant) stipulates that under section 25N an employer must obtain the permission of the State Government in cases of retrenchment and states that the employer challenged the constitutionality of this provision before the Rajasthan High Court obtaining a stay order prohibiting the State Government from proceeding further in the matter. The Order goes on to state, inter alia, that, in view of the fact that the dispute was unlikely to be settled by mutual agreement expeditiously between the parties and in view of the pending adjudication, all unretrenched workers should resume their duties and end their agitation, the management should make sincere efforts to absorb the retrenched workers in other departments and the management should not victimise any worker for his participation in the strike. According to the CITU, however, the employer has not respected this Government Order and is victimising about 100 workers, mostly CITU leaders, who have not yet been taken back.
5. 306. In its communication of 30 September 1983 the complainant attaches various lists which appear as the following annexes to this case: Annex I (124 employees of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. who were arrested for refusal to resume work on 1, 5, 6 and 8 August 1983); Annex II (18 employees of the same company who were sent to jail between 5 and 15 August 1983 for refusing to sign bonds concerning their employment with the company); Annex III (55 retrenched workers of the company who have not been re-employed as ordered by State Government Order of 28 August 1983). In addition, the CITU supplies details as to the union property seized and never returned by the police. Lastly, it alleges that the company is using the present "reign of terror" to disregard past agreements (e.g. the 1978 agreement to continue subsistence wages to six suspended local union office bearers) and to refuse to negotiate the various charters of demands presented by the unions involved.

B. The Government's reply

1. 307. In its communication of 22 February 1984 the Government supplies the observations of the State Government of Rajasthan. Its description of the background to the events coincides with that of the complainant. It points out that the State Government issued Orders on 28 August 1983 only after high-level negotiations between the company, the union and the State Labour Minister failed to find a solution to the problem. The factory was re-opened on 6 August 1983 and hearings before the Industrial Tribunal are still continuing.
   • The State Government emphasises that its Orders also included a direction to management to advance Rs.600/- to each worker who resumed duties and Rs.],000/- to each retrenched worker so that no hardship was caused to the workers pending adjudication. All unretrenched workers have resumed duties.
2. 308. The Government states that since section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act was declared unconstitutional by the High Court, the management cannot be pursued for having violated any legal provisions of the law of the land.
3. 309. Regarding the police intervention, the State Government stresses that the police was called only to ensure the maintenance of law and order and was withdrawn as soon as the situation returned to normal.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 310. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations of illegal retrenchment in February 1983, of about 2,400 employees of a large synthetics factory and the subsequent refusal by the employer to re-employ 55 of them, police violence and 142 arrests in August 1983 during the workers' strike over the retrenchments and the uncooperative attitude of the management as regards the employees' claims.
2. 311. First, the Committee notes that the Government does not make any comment on the alleged arrests of striking workers in August 1983 (see names in Annexes I and II), but merely states that all unretrenched workers have resumed work. The Committee requests the Government to confirm whether any of these named strikers remain detained. It would recall in general in this connection that strike action is recognised as a legitimate means available to workers to promote and defend their occupational and economic interests [See, for example, 214th Report, Case No. 1081 (Peru), para. 261; 217th Report, Case No. 1089 (Upper Volta), para. 239.] In addition, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to the importance of the principle according to which the development of labour relations is impaired when severe sanctions are applied to workers who participate in strike action. In particular penalties of imprisonment should not be imposed as a result of the exercise of the right to strike.
3. 312. As regards the alleged police violence in breaking up the strike in August 1983, the Committee notes the directly contradictory statements of the complainant and the Government and, in view of the. lack of further detail from either side, would generally recall that the intervention by security forces in a strike should be strictly limited to the maintenance of public order [See 208th Report, Case No. 967 (Peru), para. 169.]
4. 313. The Committee notes that the question of the legality of the February 1983 retrenchments in view of the labour/management understanding of September 1982 is pending before the Industrial Tribunal. While noting the Government's statement that the State Government made every effort in its Orders to ensure that no retrenched worker suffered hardship, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the adjudication, in particular with regard to the situation of the 55 workers (see Annex III) who have allegedly not been re-employed as ordered by the State Government on 28 August 1983.
5. 314. The Committee notes that, in reply to the complainant's most recent allegation concerning the employer's uncooperative attitude towards collective claims put forward by the local union, the Government merely states that the factory is now working normally.
   • In view of the vagueness of the complainant's allegation and the general nature of the Government's reply, the Committee feels that it is unable to reach any specific conclusion on this aspect of the case. It accordingly decides that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

Z. ANNEX I

• Workers arrested in August 1983
  1. 1 Umashankar 2. Shantraj
  3. 3 Syuamkrit 4. Ramchandar
  5. 5 Surendra Prasad 6. Kailash
  7. 7 Bibhuti Singh 8. Veerendra Singh
  9. 9 Rajmani Pandey 10. Banarei
  11. 11 Mathura Lal 12. Radhakant Misra
  13. 13 Sambulal Misra 14. Ramakant
  15. 15 Birdhi Lal 16. Indradeo Prasad
  17. 17 Ram Bharasa 18. Motilal
  19. 19 Sibdarshan Yadav 20. Phuleshwar
  21. 21 Khamraj Sharma 22. Yogesh Chand
  23. 23 Babu Lal 24. Mahesh Chand
  25. 25 Ramashray 26. Surendra Prasad
  27. 27 Tackchand 28. Ratti Ram
  29. 29 Suraj Mal 30. Bhola Lal
  31. 31 Ram Avtar Pandey 32. Jrilok Singh
  33. 33 Bacchan 34. Lalita Prasad
  35. 35 Keshar Ram 36. Mohan Ram
  37. 37 Sahti Prasad 38. Ram Prabhab
  39. 39 Ram Shakal 40. Ram Bahadur Singh
  41. 41 Hare Ram Mishra 42. Moti Chand
  43. 43 Lila Dhar 44. Radhakant
  45. 45 Buna Prasad 46. Prabhunath
  47. 47 Bandhan Prasad 48. Ram Avtar Singh
  49. 49 Uday Pal Singh 50. Balikaran
  51. 51 Gangadhar 52. Bhatak Lal
  53. 53 Maheswar Singh 54. Prabhulal
  55. 55 Mulchand 56. Pannalal
  57. 57 Havaldar Singh 58. Abdool Shakoor
  59. 59 Sitaram Singh 60. Chaturi Chauhan
  61. 61 Indradeo Prasad 62. Raghubir Prasad
  63. 63 Babu Ram 64. Sohan Lal
  65. 65 Ashok Kumar 66. Stanley
  67. 67 Ved Prakash Sukla 68. Ramprit Yadav
  69. 69 Dev Kishan 70. Keshab Prasad
  71. 71 Jaggu Prasad 72. Sarfuddin
  73. 73 Changur Prasad 74. Bhadho Prasad
  75. 75 Ram Awadh Sharma 76. Bhuk Lal
  77. 77 Jhaulai Prasad 78. Ram Shankar
  79. 79 Mohan Lal 80. Niranjan Singh
  81. 81 Jagdish Prasad 82. Suryanath Singh
  83. 83 Pyarelal 84. Shankar Lal
  85. 85 Purushottam 86. Shriv Darshan
  87. 87 Devendra Prasad 88. Khublal
  89. 89 Keshab Prasad 90. Mehmood Ansari
  91. 91 Jamuna Lal 92. Giridhari Lal
  93. 93 Ramkrishna Sharma 94. Jai Kishore
  95. 95 B. Ganpat 96. Jiban Prasad
  97. 97 Rajendra Vyas 98. Kanhaiya Lal
  99. 99 Mohan Lal 100. Ramesh Chand
  101. 101 Prabhu Lal 102. Latur Lal
  103. 103 Gobardhan Lal 104. Ramkaran
  105. 105 Uday Pal Singh 106. Hare Ram Mishra
  107. 107 Jagdish Gupta 108. Chagur Prasad
  109. 109 Shibdayal Yadav 110. Mataklal
  111. 111 Ramkant Juvari 112. Ram Pratap
  113. 113 Bindra Prasad 114. Shibdayal Jadav
  115. 115 Hamir 116. Babulal
  117. 117 Bidyasagar 118. Suryanath Singh
  119. 119 Sajjan Singh 120. Shiv Pujan
  121. 121 Lalu Yadav 122. Havaldar Singh
  123. 123 Mangi Lal 124. Shrib Mural
• ANNEX II
• Striking workers who were imprisoned for refusing to sign bonds
  1. 1 Shri Uday Pal Singh 2. Shri Nriranjan Singh
  3. 3 Shri Jay Kishore 4. Shri Mohan Ram
  5. 5 Shri Baru Lal 6. Shri Yar Ahmed
  7. 7 Shri Man Mohan 8. Shri Yogesh Chandra
  9. 9 Shri Jagdish Gupta 10. Shri Hare Ram Mishra
  11. 11 Shri Sohan Pal 12. Shri Stanley
  13. 13 Shri Ved Prakash Shukla 14. Shri Sharfuhan
  15. 15 Shri Shiv Dayal Ydav 16. Shri Ram Avtar Pande
  17. 17 Shri Sitaram 18. Shri Rajendra Dixit
• ANNEX III
• List of workers who have not been taken back to duty even after issue of the State Government Order dated 28 August 19
  1. 1 Shri Raghunath Sahay Misra 2. Shri Abdul Hamid Khan
  3. 3 Shri B.L. Chjangal 4. Shri Gopal Singh
  5. 5 Shri Allah Banda 6. Shri Mithulal
  7. 7 Shri Ganesh Prasad 8. Shri Yar Mahamed
  9. 9 Shri Hareram Mishra 10. Shri Ram Murat Triparthi
  11. 11 Shri Panna Lal 12. Shri Srinath Mehra
  13. 13 Shri Ramesch Chand 14. Shri Ram Kumar
  15. 15 Shri Modu Lal 16. Shri Balendra Jha
  17. 17 Shri Sitaram 18. Shri Baboo Ram
  19. 19 Shri Ram Pratap 20. Shri Govinda Singh
  21. 21 Shri Sakhawat Hussain 22. Shri Tribeni Praead
  23. 23 Shri Rameswar Mourya 24. Shri Jagat Singh
  25. 25 Shri Haricharan 26. Shri Rajendra Pal Singh
  27. 27 Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma 28. Shri Haricharan
  29. 29 Shri Balbir Singh 30. Shri Mani Lal
  31. 31 Shri Ram Lkhan 32. Shri Ravindra Singh
  33. 33 Shri Kalu Lal 34. Shri Tirath Ram
  35. 35 Shri Kailash Narayan 36. Shri Mahfuz Khan
  37. 37 Shri Satish Chand 38. Shri Ram Nagine
  39. 39 Shri Mohd. Rakwaz 40. Shri Ashok Kumar
  41. 41 Shri Krishna Gopal 42. Shri Gopinath Tiwari
  43. 43 Shri Yaswant Singh 44. Shri Karuna Shankar
  45. 45 Shri Daman Hussain 46. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh
  47. 47 Shri Mohammed Ayub 48. Shri Ram Gopal Singh
  49. 49 Shri Jumma Khan 50. Shri Ghasi Lal
  51. 51 Shri Noor Mohammed 52. Shri Hafiuz Rehman
  53. 53 Shri Dev Raj 54. Shri Vekateswar Mitra
  55. 55 Shri Yogendra Chanturvedi