Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 270, Mars 1990

1. 65. The Committee examined this case and presented an interim report to the Governing Body in May 1989, which was approved at the 243rd Session of the Governing Body (see 265th Report, paras. 501-517). The Government sent its further observations on the case in a communication dated 18 October 1989.
2. 66. 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); it has ratified the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11) and the Rural Workers' Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 67. The complainant had presented a series of 22 specific allegations of violations of trade union rights in the State of Tripura. These alleged violations included assaults, murders, acts of arson, rapes, false arrests, attacks upon union premises, dismissals and threatened dismissals of union members and the deregistration of trade unions. The Government rejected all of the complainant's allegations, stating that they either lacked factual foundation or presented a distorted picture of what had actually occurred.
2. 68. The Committee noted that although the complainant's allegations were all quite specific in nature, none of them was supported by documentary evidence of any kind. Similarly, the Government had not provided any documentary evidence in support of its rejection of the allegations. The Committee recalled its view that complaints should be as fully supported as possible by evidence, and that governments should recognise the importance for their own reputation of formulating detailed replies to the allegations brought against them.
3. 69. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Committee considered that 11 of the allegations did not call for further examination. It also considered that part of a further eight matters did not call for further examination. In relation to the remaining allegations, the Committee invited the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations (265th Report, para. 517):
   • (a) The Committee asks the Government to provide information as to the outcome of the investigation into the murders of Gopal Ghosh and Nripendra Rudra Paul, including details of the outcome of any relevant court proceedings which may have been instituted as a consequence of those investigations.
   • (b) The Committee asks the Government to provide further particulars as to the alleged complicity of Badan Gope and Laxminarayan Chauhan in the murder of Haripada Dey. In particular it is asked to indicate whether these individuals have been charged with any offences in relation to this matter and, if so, whether these charges have been brought to court.
   • (c) The Committee asks the Government to provide further particulars as to the charges which have been laid against Dipak Malla and others, including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
   • (d) The Committee asks the Government to provide further particulars as to the charges which have been laid against Abdul Samad in connection with Kamalchura Police Station Case No. 1(3)/88, including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
   • (e) The Committee asks the Government to provide further information as to the outcome of the police investigation into the complaint lodged by Sudhangshu Das (Teliamura Police Station Case No. 5(4)/88), including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
   • (f) The Committee asks the Government to provide further information as to the outcome of police investigations into the incident at the Kalshimukh Rubber Plantation Centre on 6 May 1988, including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
   • (g) The Committee asks the Government to provide further information as to the charges which were laid against Manimohan Tripura and Surjya Tripura (Baikhora Police Station Case No. 5(5)/88), including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
   • (h) The Committee asks the Government to provide further information as to the outcome of the police investigation into the complaint laid by Shyamal Paul (Teliamura Police Station Case No. 5(2)/88), including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
   • (i) The Committee asks the Government to provide further information as to the charges which were laid against Bharatmori Notaia under section 251(A) of the Arms Act, including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
   • (j) The Committee asks the Government to provide further information as to the outcome of the police investigation into the complaint laid by Dhankumar Tripura against Tapan Majumdar and others, including details as to the outcome of any relevant court proceedings.
   • (k) The Committee asks the Government to provide further information as to the manner in which "the specific case" of capture of an office belonging to a CITU affiliate was "attended as per the law".
   • (l) The Committee regrets the absence of a climate in the State of Tripura which is conducive to the development and maintenance of a genuinely free and independent trade union movement, and asks the Government to take steps actively to promote the development of such a climate and to keep the Committee informed of developments in this regard.
   • (m) The Committee invites the Government to endeavour to obtain the co-operation of the complainant in the creation of a climate in the State of Tripura which is conducive to the development and maintenance of a genuinely free and independent trade union movement.

B. The Government's further observations

1. 70. In its communication dated 18 October 1989 the Government provides detailed responses in relation to each of the 14 matters which were set out at paragraph 517 of the 265th Report of the Committee:
   • (a) Six persons were arrested in connection with the murder of Nripendra Rudra Paul, and 15 witnesses were examined. Despite the best efforts of the police, it proved impossible to obtain sufficient evidence to lay charges of murder against any person or persons. Accordingly, all of those arrested were released. It appeared that the deceased was killed in a drunken brawl.
     • It also proved impossible to obtain sufficient evidence to lay charges in relation to the murder of Gopal Ghosh. This was due to the fact that those who had been assaulted along with Mr. Ghosh, including Indrajit Das and Dhirendra Debbarma, had been unable to identify any of their assailants. Dhirendra Debbarma had subsequently died of natural causes.
     • There was no evidence to suggest that the murder of Gopal Ghosh or the arrest of Indrajit Das had any relation with any kind of trade union activity.
   • (b) Charges had been laid against 32 persons in relation to the murder of Haripada Dey. Both Badan Gope and Laxminarayan Chauhan were among those charged. The case is presently before the courts.
   • (c) Dipak Malla, and others, have been charged with the offence of mischief by fire with intent to destroy a house. The case is presently before the courts.
   • (d) Four witnesses were examined in relation to Kamalchura Police Station Case No. 1(3)/88. It proved impossible to obtain sufficient evidence to proceed further with the matter, and the charges were dropped. The allegation that Mr. Samad had been beaten whilst in police custody was found to be baseless.
   • (e) Charges have been laid against six persons as a result of the complaint laid by Sudhangshu Das. The case is presently before the courts.
   • (f) Two cases were registered as a result of the incident at the Kalshimukh Rubber Plantation Centre on 6 May 1988. Both cases are presently before the courts.
   • (g) On 14 May 1988, Dipak Malla lodged a complaint to the effect that Sunanda Tripura had fired two shots at him whilst he was in the house of Jiban Tripura. Both shots had missed. The poice had endeavoured to detain Sunanda Tripura and two companions, Surjya Tripura and Harimohan (Manimohan) Tripura. After a chase Surjya Tripura and Harimohan Tripura were arrested. Sunanda Tripura has not been apprehended. The case against Surjya Tripura and Harimohan Tripura is still under investigation, and no charges have yet been laid. This delay is due to the fact that the relevant records have been requisitioned in connection with a judicial inquiry into allegations of police torture which have been laid by Surjya Tripura.
   • (h) The Government recognises that the incident involving Shyamal Paul did occur in May as alleged by the complainant, and not in February as the Government had previously stated. Charges have been laid against five persons. The case is presently before the courts.
   • (i) Bharatmoni Noatia has been charged with carrying an unlicensed firearm (a revolver). The matter has not yet come to trial.
   • (j) Police inquiries failed to secure sufficient evidence to warrant laying charges in relation to the complaint laid by Dhankumar Tripura against Tapan Majumdar and others.
   • (k) Appropriate charges have been laid in relation to the capture of an office belonging to a CITU affiliate, and the matter is presently before the courts.
   • (l) and (m) The Government states that the law and order situation in Tripura is well under control. Trade unions are able freely to pursue their lawful activities. As evidence of this, the Government attaches a list of 47 meetings organised by CITU affiliates in the State of Tripura between 12 March 1988 and 31 July 1989. Cases of inter-union rivalry are dealt with in accordance with the law. Despite the large number of incidents cited by the complainant, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that either the state government of Tripura or the central Government is discriminating against any particular trade unions or that certain trade unions are not free to carry on their legitimate activities or that a climate conducive to the development and maintenance of a genuinely free and independent trade union movement does not exist in the State of Tripura.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 71. The Committee notes that the Government has furnished detailed information in relation to all of the matters set out in paragraph 517 of the 265th Report of the Committee.
2. 72. On the evidence available, there is no reason to suppose that the incidents referred to in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 517 of the 265th Report of the Committee were connected with the trade union activities of the persons concerned. Accordingly, the Committee considers that this issue does not call for further examination.
3. 73. The Committee notes that the Government states that it proved impossible to obtain sufficient evidence to warrant the laying of charges in relation to the incidents referred to in subparagraphs (d) and (j) of paragraph 517 of the 265th Report of the Committee. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that these issues do not call for further examination.
4. 74. The Committee takes note of the evidence submitted by the Government which suggests that trade unions affiliated to the complainant have been able to pursue their activities in the State of Tripura between 12 March 1988 and 31 July 1989. It also notes that the Government considers that there is no evidence to indicate that either the state or central Government is discriminating against any particular trade unions or that certain trade unions are not free to carry out their legitimate activities or that a climate conducive to the development and maintenance of a genuinely free and independent trade union movement does not exist in the State of Tripura. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not require further examination.
5. 75. The Committee notes with some concern, however, that although the incidents which constitute the subject-matter of the allegations took place almost two years ago, in no instance have formal legal proceedings been completed. The Committee recalls that it has consistently taken the view that justice delayed is justice denied. This appears to be a particularly important consideration where serious criminal charges are pending in relation to assaults, etc., by or against trade union members or officials. Accordingly, the Committee calls upon the Government to try to ensure that all outstanding cases are dealt with as expeditiously as possible. It also asks the Government to keep it informed as to the outcome of these proceedings.