Definitive Report - Report No 89, 1966

Case No 436 (India) - Complaint date: 23-MAR-65 - Closed

1. 42. The complaint is contained in two communications addressed directly to the I.L.O by the General Workers' Union of Gladstone, Lyall and Co. Ltd. (Calcutta) on 23 March and 8 May 1965 respectively. In a communication dated 5 July 1965 the Government stated that it could not then comment on the merits of the complaint, as the matters raised were sub judice, the president of the complaining organisation having instituted criminal proceedings against the Assistant Labour Commissioner of West Bengal. On 5 January 1966 the Government forwarded the judgment of the Calcutta Magistrates' Court before which those proceedings had been brought.
2. 43. India has not ratified either 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. 44. Part of this complaint is devoted to matters which do not appear to raise issues directly affecting the exercise of trade union rights. It is alleged that the conditions of the workers are tantamount to forced labour, that hours are excessively long and overtime work obligatory, that economic conditions and the lack of minimum wage legislation force the workers to accept unduly low wages and that protective legislation is inadequate. No allegation is made that these matters involve specific breaches of legislation or of any collective agreement. The Committee, therefore, does not consider it within its competence to pursue this aspect of the matter further.
2. 45. Other parts of the complaint relate to the attitude of the competent authorities when the union seeks to obtain better conditions for the workers. In August 1964 the complaining union laid a demand for the payment of certain bonuses before the Labour Commissioner of West Bengal and in December it submitted demands relating to 17 different matters. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mr. B. K. Roy, began conciliation but later discontinued it because, it is alleged, the employers refused to meet with the union. An appointment was made for officers of the union to meet the Deputy Labour Commissioner. When they arrived he was occupied with the conciliation of another case and the union officers were referred again to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mr. Roy. It appears that Mr. Roy insisted that the Labour Commissioner's Office could do no more in the matter and advised them to take up the case with the Industrial Tribunal, while the complainants tried to persuade him that he should take action. It is alleged that Mr. Roy was abusing his office to favour the employers and protect them from trouble. The complaining union alleges that the union president accused Mr. Roy of trying to avoid his legal obligations as a Conciliation Officer and that Mr. Roy then insulted and attempted to assault the president and threatened to forbid him to enter the Labour Commissioner's Office in future. In general terms the complainants accuse Mr. Roy of anti-union activity, imply that he and other officials receive money from employers and allege that he is doing everything in his power to assist the employers concerned in the present case to crush the union and to deprive its members of their rights to leave, regular wage payment, fixed hours, overtime pay, allowances, etc. It is alleged also that various police officers are subsidised by the employers in question and, in return, do not interfere when hired thugs loot the union's offices and records.
3. 46. The president of the union instituted criminal proceedings against Mr. Roy in the Calcutta Magistrates' Court in respect of what was alleged to have occurred at the interview referred to in the preceding paragraph.
4. 47. The remaining part of the complaint refers in very general terms to alleged infringements of trade union rights. It is alleged that the Government has failed to prevent unfair labour practices, that officers or active members of the union have been dismissed, transferred or passed over for promotion or subjected to pressure to force them to join a company union, and have been discriminated against in respect of compassionate leave, pay, bonuses, allowances, etc. No specific examples are given.
5. 48. The Government has furnished no observations on the substance of the case but has forwarded the judgment of the Calcutta Magistrates' Court in the prosecution of Mr. Roy, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, instituted by the president of the complaining organisation. According to the judgment the magistrate found that the president and his witnesses were not telling the truth, that in the course of the interview with Mr. Roy they put forward illegal demands and that the prosecutor was not insulted or treated as alleged. Mr. Roy was found not guilty.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 49. The Committee observes that the one alleged infringement of trade union rights formulated in specific detail-the treatment of union officers at an interview in the Labour Commissioner's Office-has been held to be unfounded by the competent magistrates' court, after a hearing which appears to have been conducted according to normal judicial procedure. In so far as the rest of the complaint relates to alleged infringements of trade union rights it consists of generalities unsupported by specific evidence of particular cases. In this connection, therefore, the Committee does not consider that the complainants have furnished sufficient evidence to permit of these allegations being examined on their merits or even to justify its asking the Government to furnish detailed observations thereon. In so far as the rest of the complaint is concerned - i.e. the allegations relating to working conditions and to the conduct of certain public officials and police officers - there is no specific evidence before the Committee to link it with any infringement of trade union rights.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 50. In the circumstances, therefore, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.