Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 67, 1963

1. 67. The complaint of the Tea Workers' Union of Calcutta and Howrah is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 13 March 1962. The Government furnished its observations on the complaint by a communication dated 22 June 1962.
2. 68. India has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 69. The complainants state that a collective agreement was reached on 30 May 1960, following conciliation proceedings, between the union and R. J. Industries (Private) Ltd., this agreement being approved by the West Bengal State Labour Directorate through the Assistant Labour Commissioner. According to the copy of the agreement furnished by the complainants, it was to remain in force for three years. They allege that, although the agreement was legally binding, the management never implemented any of its provisions and, to avoid having to do so, excluded 39 long-service workmen from their premises. For 18 months, declare the complainants, they made repeated requests to the West Bengal Government to cause the agreement to be implemented and to prosecute the management for violating it, to secure the recovery of unpaid wages and to obtain reinstatement of the said 39 workers. They contend that the management tried to organise newly recruited workers in a new union.
2. 70. As a result, a general strike of the company's employees was called on 5 February 1962, and, it is alleged, it was not until 7 March that a conciliation meeting with the West Bengal Assistant Labour Commissioner was arranged. The complainants declare that the employers caused peaceful strikers to be assaulted, that no relief has been paid to the 39 employees who were not allowed to work, that active union members have been dismissed and that wages have not been paid in accordance with the agreement. They complain that the Government has failed to take action against the employers for statutory breaches of the agreement.
3. 71. The Government declares that the complaining organisation, in a letter dated 23 December 1960, alleged that the employers had violated only three of the 17 clauses of the agreement of 30 May 1960-those dealing with leave, pay slips, and the strength of monthly-rated workmen. The State Labour Directorate took up these issues with the employers immediately. Meanwhile, declares the Government, a violent struggle for power took place between two leaders of the complaining union, in the course of which many of the members formed a new organisation, the National Union of Tea Workers; the employers repudiated the agreement of 30 May 1960 and concluded a fresh agreement, with the new union, on 2 May 1961.
4. 72. The company's employees launched a stay-in strike on 5 February 1962. The Government states that no notice of strike was given to the employers and that the State Labour Directorate itself received no intimation of the strike until 12 February.
5. 73. The Government denies that there was any governmental influence in the creation of the new union. In the Government's view, the complaining organisation, if it had had any real grievance, could have brought the matter before the State Implementation and Evaluation Machinery, which has the function of investigating complaints of partial or delayed implementation of awards and agreements. In fact, when the complaint in the present case was transmitted by the I.L.O to the Government of India, the matter was at once referred to the Implementation Officer of the West Bengal Government for action. This shows, in the Government's view, that the complainants had not properly availed themselves of the machinery for redress provided.
6. 74. The Government further expresses the view that the allegations do not involve any infringement of trade union rights and that the employers could not be regarded as favouring one union against another by reason of the fact that they were willing to make an agreement with any union representing the majority of the workers.
7. 75. In conclusion, the Government declares that the complaint has been rendered meaningless because the employers concerned concluded a new collective agreement for a period of three years with the complaining organisation on 29 March 1962. The Government has furnished a copy of this agreement. Under its terms, inter alia, the employers recognise the union and agree to re-engage the 39 workers who had been laid off. Further, the agreement recites that all the subsisting points of dispute are regarded as having been settled and disposed of upon the conclusion of the agreement.