Informe provisional - Informe núm. 374, Marzo 2015

1. 587. The Committee last examined this case at its October 2013 meeting when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 370th Report, paras 588–598, approved by the Governing Body at its 319th Session (November 2013)].
2. 588. Since there has been no reply from the Government, the Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of this case on two occasions. At its October 2014 meeting [see 373rd Report, para. 6], the Committee launched an urgent appeal and drew the attention of the Government to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it may present a report on the substance of this case even if the observations or information from the Government have not been received in due time.
3. 589. 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).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 590. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 370th Report, para. 598]:
   • (a) The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was last examined, the Government has not replied to any of the Committee’s outstanding recommendations. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to clarify which agreement it is referring to in its reply and, should there be a more recent agreement, to transmit a copy thereof to the Committee. The Committee recalls that it has already requested the Government and the complainant to indicate whether the July 2011 agreement has now been implemented and cannot but strongly reiterate its previous request.
   • (c) In view of the gravity of the matters raised in this case, the Committee once again requests the Government to institute immediately an independent judicial inquiry into the allegations that: (i) violence was used against trade union members during a demonstration against the refusal of the enterprise to implement the tripartite agreement, injuring nine; and (ii) 30 trade union officers were dismissed following this demonstration and/or criminal charges were brought against them, with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of this investigation and to keep it informed of any follow-up measures taken. It expects that, should it be found that these unionists were dismissed or charged for the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure their reinstatement and the dropping of all pending charges. If reinstatement is found not to be possible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the union members concerned are paid adequate compensation so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union discrimination.
   • (d) The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate under which provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act the trade union officers were charged and invites it to ensure that the charges are dropped should they relate to the exercise of legitimate strike action.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 591. The Committee deeply deplores the fact that, despite the time that has elapsed since this case was last examined, the Government has not replied to any of the Committee’s outstanding recommendations, although it has been invited on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, to present its comments and observations on the case. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 592. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee finds itself obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without the benefit of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 593. The Committee once again recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them.
4. 594. The Committee recalls that the complaint in this case was lodged in 2011 and concerned allegations that the management of the Karachi Electric Supply Enterprise refused to implement a tripartite agreement signed on 26 July 2011, to which it was a party.
5. 595. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee observed that the Government had sent only partial information indicating that an agreement had been reached between the management and KESC as a result of an effective intervention of the governor of Sindh and that subsequently, the government of the province of Sindh had also been asked to make all efforts to ensure the implementation of this agreement in letter and spirit. It was not clear whether the Government was referring to the July 2011 agreement or to a more recent agreement that might have addressed the additional allegations of subsequent violence and dismissals. The Committee therefore requested the Government and the complainant to provide further information relating to this agreement and to indicate whether the July 2011 agreement has now been implemented. As no new information has been provided by either the Government or the complainant, the Committee reiterates its previous request.
6. 596. The Committee further recalls the additional allegations that during a demonstration against the refusal of the enterprise to implement the tripartite agreement of July 2011, the enterprise management ordered its security guards to open fire on protesting workers, injuring nine, and subsequently dismissed and/or filed criminal cases against 30 trade union officers. According to the complainant, the police refused to file criminal charges against the management of the company, and the complainant was only able to bring the case of violent intervention in a peaceful demonstration and subsequent dismissals following an order of the court. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the investigations instituted into the allegations with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts. It expects that, should it be found that these unionists were dismissed or charged for the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure their reinstatement and the dropping of all pending charges. If reinstatement is found not to be possible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the union members concerned are paid adequate compensation so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union discrimination.
7. 597. Recalling that Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amended the Anti-Terrorism Act by penalizing with imprisonment the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or slowdowns, had been repealed and is no longer in force, and noting from the complainant’s allegations that charges were brought against trade union officers under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate under which provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act the trade union officers were charged and invites it to ensure that any pending charges are dropped should they relate to the exercise of legitimate strike action.