Interim Report - Report No 292, March 1994

1. 633. In a communication dated 1 June 1992, the International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Association (IUF) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of India. It sent additional information in comumunications dated 11 June, 11 July and 23 July 1992.
2. 634. The Government supplied its observations on the case in communications dated 1 November 1993 and 10 March 1994.
3. 635. India has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 636. In its communication of 1 June 1992, the IUF alleges that the Government carried out various acts of interference with the functioning of an international seminar conducted by the IUF in Bombay from 16 to 20 September 1991. During the seminar, a police officer interrogated seminar organizers Bob Ramsay and Ma Wei Pin. He asked what the IUF was, what the seminar was about and who was attending it. He was shown copies of letters sent by the IUF to government ministries requesting assistance in arranging visas, as well as the names of participants in the seminar. In this respect, the IUF provides a copy of the visiting card of the police officer, which he gave to the organizers at the time of his visit to the seminar.
2. 637. In addition, participants from Pakistan were required to report to a police station daily. In one case, this caused them to miss a seminar session. The seminar, which brought together worker representatives from the Unilever company, was also attacked at a Bombay press conference by representatives of Hindustan Lever, India's Unilever subsidiary, who alleged that the seminar was intended to disrupt the normal functioning of Unilever companies in India and Asia and to sabotage India's economic reforms. The IUF encloses a copy of Hindustan Lever's press release as well as a packet of articles from the Bombay press that report on the press conference. The IUF contends that the above actions taken together constitute interference in its legitimate functioning and that of its affiliated unions which sent representatives to the seminar. Article 5 of Convention No. 87 specifically guarantees the right of organizations of workers to conduct international meetings free from interference by governments or employers.
3. 638. In its communication of 11 July 1992, the IUF provides further information on violations of trade union rights at different plants of Hindustan Lever in Bombay and in other cities as follows. In Bombay (Sewri plant, Research Centre, Fine Chemicals and Head Office) union members have been illegally suspended, dismissed or charge-sheeted. Elected union leaders have been isolated from other workers by being forced to work in a separate depot or go-down. The democratically elected union was de-recognized by management in 1989. Moreover, in Garden Reach, Calcutta, 300 contract workers were retrenched in 1988, while struggling for their right to organize. In addition, in Shyamnagar, Calcutta, the union leader S.B. Roy was dismissed in 1988.
4. 639. In Chindwara (state of Madya Pradesh), the democratic union organizing almost all workers was not recognized. Instead, a settlement was signed with a "welfare committee". The same was done in Orai (state of Uttar Pradesh) where in adition the union secretary has been retrenched. In Etah (Uttar Pradesh) union leaders have been retrenched (1980 - M.P. Gupta, General Secretary; 1984 - Pravad, President; 1990 - R. Sharma, General Secretary; Swaveny, Joint Secretary; and R. Palsingh, active member). The union is now management-controlled.
5. 640. In Ghaziabad, management has not signed an agreement with the democratically elected union committee since 1971. Instead, they signed four agreements with undemocratic committees. The 1991 settlement, with a wage increase, is only operational for workers who sign an individual agreement in which they accept the undemocratic committee and the settlement. In 1975, the chair of the union, Mr. Bidani, was transferred to the Delhi branch despite protests. Later, Mr. Bidani was dismissed and from 1987 management refused to speak with him.
6. 641. In Taloja (Bombay), all contract workers and contractors were changed when the union tried to organize them. Now, contract workers are often changed. In Mangalore (Karnataka state), workers have been suspended illegally and others have been illegally charge-sheeted due to their union activities. Generally, the trade union federation of Hindustan Lever companies is not recognized and separate unions are advised by management not to join the federation. Many federation leaders have been retrenched (Mr. R.L. Gupta - President, Mr. Bidani and Mr. S.B. Roy) and others separated from workers (Mr. B. D'Costa - General Secretary and Mr. F. D'Souza).
7. 642. Finally, the IUF states that during research to compile this information, six places (21 establishments) were visited. In these six places, researchers were followed by police or security personnel from Hindustan Lever. In three places, researchers were called to the local police station and in four cases the researchers were told that they would have to leave. In many cases, workers were told not to meet with the researchers and security was doubled at the factories. In Shyamnagar one researcher was taken in by the police and assaulted in the police van. The police threatened to further assault the researcher or jail him although he was later released without any charges.
8. 643. In its communication of 23 July 1992, the IUF alleges that there have been further violations of trade union rights by Hindustan Lever and that the Government has not taken effective measures to safeguard these rights. It contends that on three different occasions (29 April, 11 May and 22 June 1992), an office-bearer of the Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees' Union, Mr. A.J. D'Souza, was physically prohibited by company management from leaving his place of work to attend proceedings in the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Commission offices. In addition, on 12 May 1992, Mr. D'Souza was threatened with retaliation by the company's personnel manager if he continued to attend conciliation/adjudication proceedings. The IUF encloses letters from the union to the personnel manager of the Hindustan Lever Research Centre in Bombay, complaining about the above incidents. It submits that these actions of Hindustan Lever are clearly aimed at preventing the union from seeking redress from government machinery for its grievances.

B. The Government's reply

1. 644. In its communication of 1 November 1993, the Government explains in a general manner that its comments are based on information provided by the State Governments of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madya Pradesh and West Bengal. This is because the allegations refer to violations at different units of Hindustan Lever Limited at its plants located in these States whose Governments are responsible for enforcing the provisions of the industrial relations laws.
2. 645. Concerning more specifically the alleged interrogation of the seminar organizers and the issue of participants from Pakistan being asked to report to the police station daily causing them to miss a seminar session, the Government states that a report is awaited from the Home Department of the Government of Mahrashtra. On receipt of this information by the federal Government, the Committee will be apprised. The Government contends that the alleged attack on the seminar by representatives of Hindustan Lever Limited at a Bombay press conference cannot be termed as interference by the management. Trade unions, through the medium of a seminar, are free to express their views on the activities of the management. Similarly, management has the freedom to express its apprehensions through the media about the deliberations and conclusions at a seminar organized by trade unions.
3. 646. The Government then refers to the allegations of violations of trade union rights at different plants of Hindustan Lever in Bombay. With respect to the allegation that union members have been illegally suspended, dismissed or illegally charge-sheeted, the Government explains that three of the five employees dismissed/terminated from their services (Mr. Bennet D'Costa, Mr. V.P. Ghuge and Mr. Nand Kumar) were office-bearers of the union. These three had been dismissed after domestic inquiries were held for the charges levelled against them. After conciliation, the industrial dispute regarding Mr. Ghuge's dismissal was referred to the Labour Court, Bombay, by an order of the State Government dated 16 November 1990. This case is sub judice. Mr. D'Costa and Mr. Nand Kumar had made an application for reinstatement under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The court had stayed the dismissal order of Mr. D'Costa who is still working in the factory.
4. 647. Turning to the allegation that elected union leaders have been isolated by the company and are forced to work elsewhere, the Government replies that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, who recently visited the Sewri factory found that the President and Vice-President of the union were working at a go-down which is about 2 kilometres from factory premises. Four union committee members had been transferred to a go-down which is about a kilometre from factory premises. However, the management informed the Assistant Commissioner of Labour that it is a practice to rotate the workmen in different departments and go-downs and that office-bearers of the union cannot claim exemption from this practice. The Government adds that under the Industrial Disputes Act, the concerned union could have raised an industrial dispute regarding the transfer of office-bearers from the factory to the go-down. However, the union had not taken recourse to this action nor had it filed any complaint in the Labour/Industrial Court.
5. 648. Concerning the issue of de-recognition by management of the democratically elected union in 1989, the Government indicates that under the Code of Discipline in Industry (which it attaches to its observations), the management had given recognition to the Hindustan Lever Employees' Union on 27 March 1972 and to the Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees' Union on 2 May 1984. According to the management, the Hindustan Lever Employees' Union failed to observe the conditions stipulated by the Code and, therefore, the said union was de-recognized in September 1989. In spite of the de-recognition, the management continues to hold discussions and negotiations with this union. The unions referred to above have made applications in the Industrial Court to be declared as recognized unions and to obtain the status of sole bargaining agents. These applications are pending before the Industrial Court, Bombay.
6. 649. Regarding the retrenchment of 300 contract workers in Calcutta while struggling for their right to organize, the Government indicates that in 1991 the management of Hindustan Lever stopped contract works at their unit located in Garden Reach, Calcutta. As a result, about 300 contract labourers employed by different contractors were rendered jobless. It was alleged by the union that the management had intentionally stopped the contract works on flimsy grounds in order to punish the contract labourers. The dispute which is now pending before the Conciliation Authority could not be taken up for conciliation earlier as a court case between two rival factions of the union was pending before the Calcutta High Court. With respect to the allegation that the union leader Mr. S.B. Roy was dismissed in 1988, the Government replies that this union leader was reportedly a worker employed by a contractor and that he might have lost his job due to stoppage of contract works by the management.
7. 650. As regards the allegation that in Chindwara (Madya Pradesh) the union organizing almost all the workers was not recognized and that a settlement was signed instead with a "welfare committee", the Government indicates that a settlement was signed on 5 October 1990 with the "negotation committee" which was duly elected by the Hindustan Lever Employees' Union in 1989.
8. 651. Concerning the allegation that the union secretary was retrenched in Orai (Uttar Pradesh), the State Government emphasizes that the union secretary, Mr. Krishnan Swarup Shukla, an employee of the Hindustan Lever Limited at Orai, was dismissed from service because of misconduct and inefficiency and not due to trade union activities. Moreover, Mr. Shukla has collected all his dues. As regards the allegation that various union leaders named by the complainant have been retrenched in Etah (Uttar Pradesh) and that the union is now management-controlled, the State Government points that as from 11 May 1984 the Etah unit of Hindustan Lever Limited is being managed by M/S Lipton India Limited. Prior to this date, there were two cases of termination of service of employees who were office-bearers of the trade union at the Etah unit of Hindustan Lever. Mr. Mathura Prasad, Secretary of the union, and Mr. B.S. Rawat, Joint Secretary of the union, were dismissed from service on 26 February 1980 and 13 August 1983 respectively, both on account of misconduct. The industrial disputes in this regard are pending in the Labour Court, Agra, which is being requested to expedite these two cases. According to the State Government, apart from these two industrial disputes, no other matter has come to its notice and industrial peace prevails at the unit at present.
9. 652. The Government refutes the allegation that in Ghaziabad management has not signed any agreement with the democratically elected union committee since 1971 but instead signed four agreements with undemocratic committees. It explains that the management of the Ghaziabad unit of Hindustan Lever Limited has from time to time signed agreements with a trade union by the name of Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha. On 30 December 1971, an agreement was signed when Mr. R.P. Bidani was the Chairman of the union. On 28 January 1976, the management signed an agreement regarding dearness allowance with 37 workers. On 5 December 1977, 3 November 1979, 8 August 1981 and 19 October 1982, agreements regarding dearness allowance, wages and bonus were signed with the above union. On 3 May 1991, an agreement covering various aspects of working conditions of workers was signed with this union. All these agreements were signed without any coercion or pressure to provide favourable working conditions to the workers. With respect to the allegation that the 1991 settlement with a wage increase is only operational for workers who sign an individual agreement in which they accept the undemocratic committee, the Government argues that since the 1991 agreement was signed by 226 of the 300 workers of the Department of Labour office and since only 12 workers have opposed the agreement and have not availed themselves of its benefits, this agreement can by no stretch of the imagination be termed as "undemocratic".
10. 653. The Government then deals with the issue of the forced transfer of the Chairman of the Union, Mr. R.P. Bidani, as well as of his subsequent dismissal. It explains that on 26 September 1975 Mr. Bidani was transferred from the Hindustan Lever unit located at Ghaziabad to the Delhi Branch Office. Mr. Bidani had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court on this matter and the Court declared his transfer as null and void on 30 April 1985. This award was published on 29 June 1985 and Mr. Bidani filed an application regarding the delay in the implementation of the award by the management on 16 June 1986. Against this application and the above award of the Labour Court, the management obtained a stay order from the Allahabad High Court. In the meantime, the Delhi Branch Office of Hindustan Lever Limited terminated the services of Mr. Bidani on 10 August 1984 after holding a domestic inquiry. For approval of their action, the management moved an application in the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the award of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad, dated 30 April 1985, the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, dismissed the application as it felt that this case was outside its jurisdiction. On this matter, the management has filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which is sub judice.
11. 654. As regards the allegation that in Taloja, Bombay, all contract workers and contractors were changed when the union tried to organize them and that now contract workers are often changed, the Government indicates that, according to the management, this issue probably relates to the disruption of activity in 1986 due to a strike by the contract labour engaged by the contractors working on the site of the Hindustan Lever unit of Taloja. In April 1986, the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (MGKU) had submitted a charter of demands to the contractors regarding revision of wages and services of the contract workers. Later the MGKU had also urged Hindustran Lever to intervene for an early settlement of the matter. Since the matter was entirely between the contractors and the contract workers, the management could not be involved. Still, the factory manager used his good offices to arrange several meetings between the two parties. However, on 24 August 1986 a personal dispute arose between one of the contract workers and his contractor which resulted in the termination of the contract of the contract worker concerned. Because of this action, ten employees of the contractor concerned were not allowed to enter the factory. The other contractors who were working at different sites were forced to suspend their work because of the threats they received from the contract labour. The State Government of Maharashtra is of the opinion that the management was not concerned with the termination of services of the contract labour, since this was a dispute between the contractors and their employees. In the event of termination of the contract, the services of the contract labour automatically get terminated. In these circumstances, it is not correct to assert that the management changed the contractors and the contract workers when the union tried to organize them. Moreover, in 1986, neither any union nor any contract worker had lodged a complaint with the Labour Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner's Office concerning termination of services. The State Government adds that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who recently visited the factory at Taloja found that contract workers are performing their normal duties and a situation of peaceful industrial relations prevails there.
12. 655. With respect to the issue of workers having been suspended and others having been illegally charge-sheeted due to their union activities in Mangalore, the Government submits that the allegation of violation of trade union rights by the management does not appear to be correct. On 7 December 1991, there was an incident of "gherao" (i.e. a practice whereby workers surround company premises for a few hours or even days so as to physically prevent management personnel from leaving in order to press their claims) of the company manager of Hindustan Lever Limited in Mangalore. This resulted in the suspension of eight workmen. However, conciliation proceedings were immediately initiated by the officials of the Labour Department and a settlement was signed on 12 December 1991. The suspension orders of the workmen were revoked. In addition, a long-term settlement was also signed between the workmen and the management on 21 September 1992. Now a cordial relationship appears to exist between the two social partners at the unit in Mangalore.
13. 656. The Government then responds to the allegation that the trade union federation of Hindustan Lever companies is not recognized and separate unions are advised by the management not to join the federation and that many federation leaders have been retrenched and others separated from the workers. It states that Hindustan Lever Limited has plants in different parts of the country and gives a description of the company's seven plants and offices in the state of Maharashtra. It explains that employees of these seven establishments have formed the following three unions: (i) Hindustan Lever Employees' Union; (ii) Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees' Union; and (iii) Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha. All these three unions are affiliated to the Federation of Hindustan Lever Limited and/or its Associated/Allied Companies' Employees' Union. The Government refers to its previous comments with respect to the alleged retrenchment, etc., of federation leaders, Mr. S.B. Roy and Mr. B. D'Costa. Regarding the alleged retrenchments of federation leaders Mr. R.L. Gupta, President, Mr. Patni and Mr. F. D'Souza, the Government requests the IUF to provide details indicating the unit and year of dismissal so as to enable it to provide comments.
14. 657. As regards the allegation that during research to compile this information researchers were harassed and/or followed by police and security personnel from Hindustan Lever, the Government replies that it cannot provide any comments as the allegation is vague and non-specific.
15. 658. The Government provides the following comments regarding the allegation that an office-bearer of the Hindustan Lever Resesarch Centre Employees' Union, Mr. A.J. D'Souza was physically prohibited on three different occasions by company management from leaving his place of work to attend proceedings in the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Commissioner's Office and that he was threatened with retaliatory action by the company's personnel manager if he continued to attend conciliation/adjudication proceedings. First, the Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees' Union has filed Unfair Labour Practice (ULP) Complaint No. 910 of 1992 in the Industrial Tribunal in connection with the management's action prohibiting Mr. A.J. D'Souza from attending conciliation proceedings. The union has made the following prayer: (i) two representatives of the union may be permitted to attend the court cases which concern the union; (ii) the management should be restrained from taking any disciplinary action against any member of the union merely for the reason that he had remained absent when he was required to attend court cases concerning him. Second, regarding refusal of permission to Mr. A.J. D'Souza for attending conciliation proceedings on 22 June 1992, the State Government indicates that the Joint Secretary of the union had requested the personnel manager of the company to allow Mr. A.J. D'Souza time off without deduction of wages to enable the latter to attend court case No. 526 of 1989 at the Industrial Court, Bombay. According to the management, however, there were no conciliation proceedings fixed for 22 June 1992 pertaining to the company at the Labour Commissioner's Office nor was there a case in the court. Therefore, the management refused to give time off to Mr. A.J. D'Souza on 22 June 1992. Mr. D'Souza thereafter took half a day's casual leave for his personal work.
16. 659. In its communication of 10 March 1994, the Government states that more details would be required from the complainants concerning the retrenchments of the five union officials in Etah, since no case concerning these officials was brought to the attention of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 660. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern interference by the authorities and by the management of Hindustan Lever Ltd. in the functioning of an international seminar organized by the IUF in Bombay. These allegations also refer to several acts of anti-union discrimination against trade union officials and interference in trade union activities by the management of Hindustan Lever Ltd. at its different plants in various cities.
2. 661. The Committee, at the outset, regrets in the present case the slow and bureaucratic nature of the procedure concerning the dismissals, some of which took place in 1980 and are still pending before the Labour Court.
3. 662. Furthermore, the Committee expresses its concern over the alleged interrogation of the seminar organizers by a police officer as well as the fact that certain participants were asked to report to the police station daily. The Committee considers these allegations to be all the more serious since it would appear that the IUF had already cleared the necessary formalities with the relevant government ministries in order to hold this seminar and have a certain number of representatives from its affiliated organizations take part in it. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that the formalities to which trade unionists and trade union leaders are subject in seeking entry to the territory of a State, or in attending to trade union business there, should be based on objective criteria and be free of anti-union discrimination (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 532). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the report on this matter that is being prepared by the State Government of Maharashtra.
4. 663. The Committee observes that further allegations of interference in relation to this seminar refer to criticism of this seminar by representatives of Hindustan Lever Ltd., India's Unilever subsidiary, through the medium of a press conference. While acknowledging that such criticism might not be conducive to harmonious industrial relations between representatives of Unilever companies and unions in India, the Committee does not believe that such criticism amounts to an act of interference in the functioning of an international seminar. In its view, the full exercise of freedom of association calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas, and to this end workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings, in their publication and in the course of their other activities (see Digest, op. cit., para. 175).
5. 664. As regards the illegal dismissals of union members in the Hindustan Lever plant in Bombay, the Committee notes with concern the allegations concerning anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that according to the Government three office-bearers of the union (Mr. Bennet D'Costa, Mr. V.P. Ghuge and Mr. Nand Kumar) were dismissed after domestic inquiries were held for the charges levelled against them. The Government, however, does not specify what charges were brought against these three union leaders. In the absence of such information, the Committee would recall that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions (see Digest, op. cit., para. 556). In this case, the Committee notes that the Labour Court, Bombay, had stayed the dismissal order of Mr. D'Costa who is still working in the factory. The Committee further notes that Mr. Ghuge's case which was referred to the Labour Court, Bombay, is sub judice while Mr. Nand Kumar has made an application for reinstatement before the same Court. The Committee therefore requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress and outcome of the court proceedings in these two cases.
6. 665. As regards the allegation that several union leaders have been retrenched in Orai (Mr. Krishnan Swarup Shukla, Union Secretary) and in Etah (Mr. M.P. Gupta, General Secretary; Mr. Pravad, President; Mr. R. Sharma, General Secretary; Mr. Swaveny, Joint Secretary; and Mr. R. Palsingh, active member), the Committee notes that the Government merely provides information in the case of Mr. Shukla, stating that he was dismissed from service because of misconduct and inefficiency and not due to trade union activities. As regards the allegations concerning the retrenchments of the five union officials in Etah, the Committee notes the Government's statement that more details would be required from the complainant in this respect, since no case concerning these officials was brought to the attention of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Committee therefore requests the complainant to provide details on the alleged retrenchment of the five union officials in the Etah units of Hindustan Lever Ltd. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the judicial proceedings pending before the Labour Court, Agra, in relation to the dismissal from service of two office-bearers at the Etah Unit of Hindustan Lever, namely Mr. Mathura Prasad, Secretary, and Mr. B.S. Rawat, Joint Secretary dismissed in February 1980 and August 1983 respectively. Finally, it requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the writ petition filed by the management in the Delhi High Court in relation to its dismissal of Mr. R.P. Bidani, Chairman of the union of the Hindustan Lever Unit located at Ghaziabad before his transfer to the Delhi Branch Office.
7. 666. With respect to the allegation that elected union leaders in a Hindustan Lever plant in Bombay have been isolated from other workers by being forced to work in a separate depot or go-down, the Committee observes that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour from Bombay had indeed found that the President and the Vice-President of the union had been transfered to a go-down which was about 2 kilometres from factory premises, while four union committee members had been transferred to a go-down a kilometre away from factory premises. According to the management, it is a practice to rotate workers in different go-downs and that office-bearers of the union cannot claim exemption from this practice. Apart from failing to see the need to transfer six office-bearers away from factory premises at the same time, the Committee considers that such transfers may seriously harm the efficiency of trade union activities (see Digest, op. cit., para. 560). It therefore requests the Government to ensure that an independent and impartial inquiry is held in order to ascertain whether the transfers of these six office-bearers were based on acts of anti-union discrimination and, if so, to ensure that these office-bearers are transferred back to the factory premises of the Hindustan Lever plant in Bombay. It also requests the Government to ensure in future that employers refrain from having recourse to such measures.
8. 667. Concerning the issue of de-recognition by the management of the democratically elected union in 1989 at Bombay Sewi Plant, the Committee notes that the management admits to having de-recognized the Hindustan Lever Employees' Union in September 1989 because the latter failed to observe the conditions stipulated by the Code of Discipline in Industry. The Committee notes, however, that this unilateral de-recognition by the management is not in line with the Code which stipulates "that no unilateral action should be taken in connection with any industrial matter and that disputes should be settled at the appropriate level" (article II(i)). In addition, if the management continues to hold discussions and negotiations with this union as it says it does, the Committee fails to see why it proceeded with the de-recognition in the first place. Moreover, the Committee also notes with concern that since de-recognition of this union in 1989, there is no indication that the management held negotiations with another workers' organization or indeed that another representative workers' organization exists. In this connection, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to the fact that direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, by-passing representative organizations where these exist, might be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted (Digest, op. cit., para. 608). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the applications before the Industrial Court, Bombay, by the Hindustan Lever Employees' Union and the Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees' Union to be declared as recognized unions and to obtain the status of sole bargaining agents.
9. 668. Regarding the retrenchment of 300 contract workers in Garden Reach, Calcutta, the Committee notes that according to the complainant, these workers were retrenched in 1988 while struggling for their right to organize while according to the Government these workers were rendered jobless in 1991 when the management of Hindustan Lever stopped contract works at their unit in Garden Reach, Calcutta. In view of the contradiction between these two statements, the Committee is not in a position to ascertain whether these workers were retrenched for reasons of anti-union discrimination or due to economic reasons leading to the complete stoppage of contract works in this unit in Calcutta. The Committee notes, however, that the dispute is now pending before the conciliation authority in Calcutta and requests the Government to keep it informed of its outcome. Similarly, the Committee notes that the complainant states that the union leader S.B. Roy was dismissed in 1988 in Calcutta whereas the Government indicates that he might have lost his job due to stoppage of contract works by the management, as he was a contract labourer. The Committee therefore requests both the complainant and the Government to provide, as soon as possible, information relating to the exact reasons for the retrenchment of the trade union leader Mr. S.B. Roy as well as the reasons as to why the management stopped contract works in the unit in Calcutta in 1988, so that it can examine this aspect of the case in full knowledge of the facts.
10. 669. The Committee notes that the Government refutes the allegations that in Chindwara and Ghaziabad the management signed agreements with undemocratic committees instead of with the committees of democratically elected unions. According to the Government, in Chindwara a settlement was signed in 1990 with a committee which was duly elected by the Hindustan Lever Employees' Union and in Ghaziabad several agreements were signed with the Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha over a period of years, the last one being in 1991 which was signed by 226 of the 300 workers. In view of the contradiction once again between these two statements, the Committee will only recall the principle that workers' and employers' organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration.
11. 670. Regarding the allegation that in Taloja, Bombay, all contract workers and contractors were changed when the union tried to organize them, the Committee notes that according to the detailed information provided by the Government, the termination of services of the contract labour occurred initially because of a personal dispute which arose between a contractor and a contract worker which resulted in the termination of the contract of the latter. This dispute then spread to other sites when other contract workers protested against this incident. The Committee, for its part, is not in a position to know whether the services of these contract workers were terminated due to reasons of anti-union discrimination since the complainant merely indicates that all contract workers were changed when the union tried to organize them, without providing further information to back up this allegation. The Committee therefore requests the complainant to provide, as soon as possible, information indicating why the termination of services of the contract workers in Taloja, Bombay, constituted acts of anti-union discrimination.
12. 671. Concerning the allegation that in Mangalore workers were illegally suspended and charge-sheeted due to their union activities, the Committee notes that eight workmen were indeed suspended in December 1991 following an incident of "gherao" of the company manager. In the Committee's view, the practice of "gherao" cannot be considered as a legitimate trade union activity. It notes, moreover, that the suspension orders of these workmen were revoked following conciliation proceedings. It therefore considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
13. 672. With respect to the allegation that the trade union federation of Hindustan Lever companies is not recognized and separate unions are advised by management not to join the federation, the Committee notes that according to the Government, employees of certain plants and offices have formed three different first-level unions which in turn are affiliated to the Federation of Hindustan Lever Ltd. and/or its Associated/Allied Companies Employees' Union. The Committee notes, however, that these plants and offices are only those which are to be found in the state of Maharashtra whereas Hindustan Lever Ltd. has plants in different parts of the country. In order to enable it to examine this allegation in full knowledge of the facts, the Committee would request the complainant to provide information specifying which first-level unions at which plants are advised by management not to join the trade union federation of Hindustan Lever companies, as well as information on any incidents which demonstrate that management hinders the activities of the federation. Similarly, regarding the alleged retrenchments of federation leaders, Mr. R.L. Gupta, Mr. Patni and Mr. F. D'Souza, the Committee requests the complainant to provide information indicating the Hindustan Lever Unit at which these persons were employed and their respective years of dismissal. The Committee further requests the complainant to provide detailed information relating to the allegation that during research to compile this information, researchers were harassed and/or followed by police and security personnel from Hindustan Lever. It would ask the complainant to indicate in particular the names of the six places and 21 establishments that were visited as well as the names of the researchers involved and the dates on which these incidents of harassment and intimidation occurred.
14. 673. As regards the allegation that an office-bearer of the Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees' Union was physically prohibited by company management from leaving his place of work to attend conciliation/adjudication proceedings concerning the union and that he was threatened with retaliatory action if he continued to attend such proceedings, the Committee notes the Government's statement that according to the management, it refused to give time off to the office-bearer to attend conciliation proceedings on 22 June 1992 because no such proceedings were fixed for this date. Even if this were so, the Committee observes that the office-bearer was nevertheless prevented from attending such proceedings on two other occasions and, in addition, threatened with retaliatory action. In this respect, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to the relevant provisions of the Recommendation concerning the protection and facilities to be afforded to workers' representatives in the undertaking (No. 143), which stipulate, amongst other things, that workers' representatives in the undertaking should be afforded the necessary time off from work, without loss of pay or social and fringe benefits, for carrying out their representation functions in the undertaking (Paragraph 10(1)). The Committee further notes that the union has filed an unfair labour practice complaint before the Industrial Tribunal in connection with the management's actions prohibiting the office-bearer from attending conciliation proceedings. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress and outcome of the complaint filed by the union.