Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 246, Novembre 1986

1. 409. The Committee examined this case at its February 1986 meeting when it reached interim conclusions, approved by the Governing Body at its 232nd Session (February-March 1986) (see 243rd Report, paragraphs 588 to 600). The Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives' Associations of India (FMRAI) presented additional information in a letter dated 31 March 1986. The Government sent communications dated 9 May and 4 November 1986, in connection with this case.
2. 410. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 411. At its meeting in February 1986, the Committee examined allegations of
2. anti-union discrimination (33 dimissals; creation by management of a rival
3. union; coercion by management to join the rival union; physical attacks on
4. leaders of the complainant union) against the complainant and its members at
5. the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. undertaking since 1983. It also considered
6. the Government's reply.
7. 412. The Governing Body, on the Committee's recommendation, approved the
8. interim report on this case and, in particular, the following conclusions:
9. a) The Committee notes that the allegations of anti-union discrimination in
10. the Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. undertaking are before the Bombay Labour
11. Court; it requests the Government to send it a copy of the Court's decision as
12. soon as it is handed down.
13. b) The Committee notes with concern that 33 workers remain dismissed by the
14. company apparently since late 1983 allegedly because of their trade union
15. membership; it recalls the principle that workers should enjoy adequate
16. protection against anti-union discrimination in their employment.
17. c) As regards the signature of an agreement between the employer and a newly
18. formed rival union, the Committee expresses the hope that the Labour Court's
19. decision will clarify both the status of the new union and the agreement it
20. signed.
21. d) The Committee requests the Government and the complainant to supply more
22. detailed information concerning the allegation of physical attacks against the
23. officers of the complainant union.
24. B. Further developments
25. 413. In a letter dated 31 March 1986, the complainant union challenged the
26. Government's statement that the disputes in question had been referred to the
27. Bombay Labour Court for adjudication. According to the union, the only matter
28. before the Labour Court concerned a request for reinstatement with full back
29. wages and continuity of service of 90 workers; it supplied a typed copy of an
30. order (dated 4 November 1985 and signed in the name of the Governor of
31. Maharashtra) referring an industrial dispute in the Raptakos Brett undertaking
32. to the Labour Court for adjudication. The FMRAI pointed out that the list of
33. 90 medical representatives involved in this referral did not include six of
34. the 33 medical representatives whose names appeared in the annex to the
35. Committee's earlier examination of the case.
36. 414. In reply to the Committee's request for further detailed information on
37. the alleged physical attacks against the officers of the complainant union,
38. the FMRAI stated that, during the evening of 8 July 1984, three union members
39. who had been peacefully picketting the company's premises in Calcutta were
40. attacked by gangsters employed by the management of Raptakos Brett Co. Ltd.
41. According to the FMRAI, one unionist (Mr. Arun Roy Choudhury) was kidnapped at
42. gunpoint, stabbed, beaten and left unconscious on the roadside; he was
43. hospitalised and a case was filed with the police against his assailants.
44. 415. Also on 8 July 1984, stated the complainant, union members assembled in
45. front of the Hotel Patliputra Ashok in Patna, State of Bihar, to submit a
46. memorandum to two company officials Messrs. Jotirmoy, Roy and Shetty; the
47. latter allegedly emerged from the hotel with a group of hired criminals
48. brandishing revolvers and other weapons and attacked the unionists. The
49. complainant states that local people chased away the criminals and the two
50. executives.
51. 416. The FMRAI further alleged that the Raptakos Brett company hired fully
52. armed criminals to assault its members who were on a hunger strike in front of
53. the company's office at Ranchi, State of Bihar, between 30 April and 5 May
54. 1984; the union's unit secretary, Mr. Ratan Chakraborty, was severely
55. assaulted.
56. 417. Lastly, the complainant alleged that although the police remained
57. inactive during the above-mentioned attacks, they had interfered to serve the
58. interests of the company in the State of Bihar. For example, in Patna, the
59. police had filed a case (No. 1071 (M)84) against some members of the
60. complainant union alleging that the union was affiliated to the Communist
61. Party of India and should therefore be prevented from exercising trade union
62. functions. The FMRAI maintains, however, that it is not affiliated to any
63. political party, or even to any central trade union body. In this connection,
64. the complainant pointed out that the rival union set up by the management in
65. the company had been provisionally affiliated to the Indian Trade Union
66. Congress in the States of Maharashtra and Bihar and at the central level.
67. 418. The Government, in its letter of 9 May 1986, states that the State
68. Government of Maharashtra has confirmed that it has sent - in two referrals -
69. all the cases of the 33 dismissed medical representatives to the Bombay Labour
70. Court for adjudication and that there has been no omission in this regard. The
71. matter remains sub judice. Further comments are awaited from the State
72. Government concerning the complainant's most recent communication. In its
73. latest communication dated 4 November l986 the Government states that the
74. Bombay Labour Court has still not given its award. It adds that it will
75. actively pursue the question of physical attacks on FMRAI union members with
76. the state governments concerned and forward information promptly.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 419. The Committee notes that, following its February 1986 examination of
   • this case two major questions remained pending: first, the outcome of the
   • appeals presented by 33 dismissed medical representatives to the Bombay Labour
   • Court; secondly, a request for further details on the alleged physical attacks
   • against officers and members of the complainant union.
2. 420. As regards proceedings in the Bombay Labour Court, the Committee notes
   • the Government's assurance that all the cases mentioned by the complainant are
   • sub judice before that tribunal. It would again draw the Government's
   • attention to the principle that workers should enjoy adequate protection
   • against anti-union discrimination in their employment and requests the
   • Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the appeals and to send it a
   • copy of the Court's decision as soon as it is handed down.
3. 421. As regards the alleged physical attacks against officers and members of
   • the complainant union, the Committee notes the details provided by the FMRAI
   • concerning incidents in May and July 1984 in the towns of Ranchi and Patna (in
   • the State of Bihar) and Calcutta (in the State of West Bengal). It notes that,
   • although this information was transmitted to the Government immediately upon
   • its receipt by the Office, no specific reply has been provided by the
   • Government, although the Government has announced that further comments from
   • the state governments are still awaited. The Committee accordingly adjourns
   • this aspect of the case once again, and urges the Government to send its
   • observations on this aspect of the case in time for the Committee's next
   • meeting.