Interim Report - Report No 86, 1966

1. 85. The complaint of the Calcutta Port Commissioners Workers' Union is contained in three communications dated 21 October and 26 December 1964 and 6 April 1965. The Government of India furnished its observations thereon by two communications dated 17 April and 28 September 1965.
2. 86. India has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Workers' Housing Rights
  87. 87 In their communications dated 21 October and 26 December 1964 the complainants state that the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, a central government undertaking, employ about 30,000 Class IV employees, entitled under the Rules of the Commissioners to rent-free quarters or a house rent allowance in lieu thereof. It is alleged that responsible officers of the Port Authority have been making illegal profits by letting outsiders occupy quarters and that the Authority as such has been allowing Class III workers to occupy Class IV quarters at a higher rent. On 6 April 1965 the complainants furnished details of a housing case affecting a member of the union employed as a carpenter.
  88. 88 In its communication dated 17 April 1965 the Government states that the Port Commissioners have 3,600 rent-free quarters for their Class IV employees. They have also a number of quarters for Class III employees, who pay 10 per cent of their wages as rent. Under the rules, only permanent Class IV employees are entitled to quarters and a waiting list is maintained, quarters being allotted strictly according to priority on the list. No outsiders, says the Government, are allotted quarters, but some of those given quarters sub-let their quarters or share them with outsiders, and those who do this are evicted. Some Class IV employees, including the person referred to in the communication dated 6 April 1965, were upgraded to Class III and were allowed to stay on in their old quarters at a token rent.
  89. 89 The allegations relate in short to what are regarded by the complainants as irregularities in the allotment of quarters to Class IV employees. No evidence has been adduced by the complainants to show that in regard to housing allotments any discrimination has been practised on trade union grounds or otherwise or that any subsisting collective agreement has been violated.
  90. 90 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to an Infringement of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  91. 91 The complaining organisation raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, in the manner prescribed, over the workers' housing question. While the dispute was pending, it is alleged, the authorities made an agreement with another union providing for the payment of rent allowance to a category of workers employed as porters. These persons were " A category " workers entitled to 15 rupees house allowance since 1 October 1957, pursuant to a binding recommendation of the Classification and Categorisation Committee. The complainants consider that this agreement deprived the workers in question of their acquired rights and constituted a violation of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides that, during the continuation of conciliation or other proceedings regarding a dispute, conditions of service may not be changed. It is alleged that the authorities made the agreement in order to discredit the complaining Organisation in the eyes of the porters in question.
  92. 92 The Government states that the porters in question were " A category " porters, who are piece-rated workers. As such they had not figured at all in the recommendation of the Classification and Categorisation Committee. To bring them into line with monthly-rated workers the Commissioners appointed a joint committee of their officers and representatives of the two recognised unions, the Calcutta Port Shramik Union and the National Union of Port Trust Employees, to examine their position. In accordance with their report, a revised incentive piece-rate scheme came into operation in February 1964 which gave these porters parity with other employees as regards rent allowances. They were also paid an indemnity retroactive to 1 October 1957. The Government states that the scheme was not implemented while conciliation proceedings were pending over a dispute raised by the complainants; there is therefore no truth in the allegation of violation of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  93. 93 In these circumstances, having regard to the explanations given by the Government and observing also that the complainants themselves have not specified the dates between which the dispute raised by them was pending, the Committee considers that the complainants have not furnished sufficient proof in support of their allegations that section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was infringed.
  94. 94 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Disciplinary Measures against Workers Who Occupied Vacant Quarters
  95. 95 It is alleged that Class IV workers who were without quarters began to occupy any premises they found vacant. Most of those who did so were suspended, generally for two months. But, it is alleged, the authorities discriminated unfairly in this respect against the complaining organisation, 15 of whose members were suspended, on dates varying from 2 August 1963 to 2 February 1964, apart from one on 12 February 1963, for six or seven months, without any reason being given. The union raised a formal industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner challenging the validity of the measures taken. It is alleged that the Conciliation Officer ordered the Port Authority not to take departmental proceedings against the suspended workmen or change their other conditions of service but that, in violation of the order, the Authority did start proceedings against them and illegally stopped or reduced their subsistence allowance. The complainants furnished a purported copy of a letter dated 18 June 1964 from the Conciliation Officer to the Chief Labour Officer of the Calcutta Port Commissioner drawing his attention to the obligation under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, not to take proceedings against the suspended workmen.
  96. 96 The Government states that disciplinary action is taken against employees who occupy quarters in an unauthorised manner, without discrimination because of their union affiliation. The 15 members of the complaining union mentioned were suspended for this reason, eight of them being allowed to resume work when they vacated the premises. While agreeing that an industrial dispute had been raised in this connection, the Government denies that these measures were taken during the period of conciliation proceedings, which terminated after discussions held on 29 June and 19 July 1964.
  97. 97 It is agreed by both parties that a dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, over the case of the suspended workmen. The allegation made, however, is that during the proceedings, lasting apparently from 18 June to 19 July 1964, further departmental proceedings were taken against the suspended workmen, including the stopping or reduction of their subsistence allowance, contrary to the provisions of the Act. As the Government has not commented on this particular aspect of the matter, the Committee requests the Government to furnish its observations thereon.
• Allegations relating to Disciplinary Measures in General against Workers
  98. 98 The complainants allege that the Port Authority and the Government have no right to take any disciplinary measures at all against employees of Calcutta Port because rules governing service conditions have not been issued, although the issue of such rules was the condition on which the Port Authority was granted exemption from the application of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
  99. 99 The Government states that rules regulating terms and conditions of service have been framed under section 31 of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890, and that the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules governing the conditions of service of central government servants have also been made applicable to the port employees. There are also the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1964.
  100. 100 These general allegations are not directly linked by the complainants with any specific allegation of infringements of trade union rights and the Committee, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that they do not call for further examination.
• Alleged Acts of Anti-Union Discrimination in respect of Grading and Promotion to the Detriment of the Members of the Complaining Organisation
  101. 101 The complainants allege that various officers and members of their union have been discriminated against, because of their union affiliation, by being refused or deprived of promotion or being illegally deprived of acquired seniority rights to the advantage of junior or less skilled employees. In this connection, the complainants refer to the cases of Mr. A. K. Mukherjee, Mr. N. Das and Mr. Chakraborty, respectively general secretary, assistant secretary and organising secretary of the union and Messrs. D. Singh, S. K. Sarkar, S. J. N. Roy, S. Chatterjee and S. Ghosh, all active members of the union, and also to the case of the greasers employed in the Hydraulic Power Station.
  102. 102 The complainants allege also that unfair labour practices happen daily in Calcutta Port. It is not possible for each workman to go to the courts, state the complainants, because litigation is expensive and takes too long, a few years elapsing before a decision is reached, and because the authorities are vindictive towards workers who take such action.
  103. 103 The complainants also criticise the procedure for settling disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the cases of Messrs. Roy, Chatterjee and Ghosh the union formally raised an industrial dispute but, it is alleged, the Regional Labour Commissioner had failed to give a ruling after about three years, while the Minister of Labour has refused to refer the cases of Messrs. Chakraborty and Mukherjee to a tribunal for adjudication.
  104. 104 The Government states that most of these cases have been handled without success by the Conciliation Officer and that in each case the action taken by the employers was found to be " in accordance with seniority rules " or employment rules, and that referral to a tribunal for adjudication was refused for this reason or because the allegations of victimisation made were " found to be without substance ".
  105. 105 It further appears that where employees of a Government concern raise a dispute which is not settled by a conciliation officer it does not go forward for settlement by adjudication unless the competent authority gives permission. This happened certainly in the cases of Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Mukherjee, and, perhaps, in the case of the greasers of the Hydraulic Power Station. In the cases of Messrs. Roy, Chatterjee and Ghosh the position is not clear because the complainants say that the Labour Commissioner has failed to give a ruling after three years, while the Government states that the action taken was in accordance with seniority rules.
  106. 106 In view of the fact that the complainants allege that court procedure is too lengthy and expensive for workers to have recourse to it-a point on which the Government has made no comment-the Committee requests the Government to be good enough to explain what remedy is open to the worker whose case is not settled by conciliation and according to what rules and by whom the decision is taken as to whether his case may be adjudicated and to state how these rules were applied in the particular cases referred to in paragraph 101 above.
• Allegations relating to Discriminatory Treatment with regard to the Granting of Loans
  107. 107 According to long-standing practice, state the complainants, Class IV workers have been entitled to obtain temporary loans from the inferior Staff Loan Fund and Class III workers loans from the Port Commissioners' Co-operative Credit Society. But, it is alleged, several Class IV workers who have been reclassified as Class III and most of whom belong to the complaining organisation have been refused loans from the Credit Society and so cannot have loans from either fund.
  108. 108 The Government states that loans from the Port Commissioners' Fund are available only to Class IV employees and not, therefore, to Class IV employees who have been promoted to Class III. The Co-operative Credit Society advances loans to workers in the first three classes. Through shortage of funds it has been unable to enrol new members. The Commissioners are therefore amending the Loan Fund rules to allow the new Class III employees to have temporary loans until the Credit Society is able to accept them as members.
  109. 109 The Committee does not consider that it has sufficient evidence before it to show that any anti-union discrimination has been practised in the granting of loans. That being so it is not concerned, in the absence of evidence that the question is directly related to the exercise of trade union rights, with what provision may be made for the granting of loans to employees.
  110. 110 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Casual Labour
  111. 111 The complainants state in their communication dated 21 October 1964 that the Port Commissioners employ many workers through a casual labour contractor and that these workers, who have worked as much as ten years side by side with the port workers, get no benefit of provident funds, bonus, sick leave, annual leave with pay, etc. and are employed all this time as casual workers generally at lower pay even though in fact their employment is permanent.
  112. 112 In their communication dated 26 December 1964, the complainants allege that the employer has begun to engage casual labourers directly for the Chief Mechanical Engineer's Department, instead of through a contractor, in order to avoid having to employ those who have been casually employed for a long time and have presented grievances through the complaining union. According to the complainants this has resulted in a lowering of the wages paid to casual workers even though the employers no longer have to pay commission to a contractor.
  113. 113 The union raised a formal dispute on this matter before the Regional Labour Commissioner and, at a tripartite meeting on 3 December 1964, the Port Authority, it is alleged, agreed to request the employment exchange to give preference in regard to engagement to casual workers who had previously been engaged through the contractor. This undertaking not being honoured, state the complainants, the matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer, who wrote formally to the Port Commissioners' Chief Labour Officer asking him to make the necessary representation to the Labour Exchange (a purported copy of this letter, dated 23 December 1964, is furnished by the complainants). But, it is alleged, no action was taken, and new casual workers continue to be engaged at lower rates and in inferior conditions and without medical benefits. In the view of the complainants this is being done in order to discredit and weaken the union.
  114. 114 The Government states that the majority of the port workers are now decasualised. Recently one contractor failed to supply casual workers because of difficulties created, according to the Government, by the complaining organisation. The Commissioners, therefore, have had to recruit casual workers from the Labour Exchange.
  115. 115 The Government declares that a formal request was made to the Labour Exchange to consider the recruitment and placement, against requisitions by the Chief Mechanical Engineer, of men formerly employed by labour contractors as casual labour in the Chief Mechanical Engineer's Department. This arrangement is now working and they are being paid the general rate for this class of casual labour in other departments. The Medical Attendance Rules and Provident Fund Rules are not applicable to any casual workers so that, says the Government, it is baseless to claim that their non-application to casual workers in the Chief Mechanical Engineer's Department is a discrimination against them because they belong to the complaining organisation.
  116. 116 As the position with regard to casual labour appears to have been regularised it would not appear that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing further the allegation that, prior to these arrangements, they were discriminated against as members of the complaining organisation, an allegation which, in any event, was in somewhat general terms.
  117. 117 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Inhumane Treatment of Workers
  118. 118 A number of cases of alleged inhumane treatment for workers who have suffered severe injury or incapacity in the course of their employment are cited by the complainants in their communication dated 26 December 1964.
  119. 119 The Government explained the measures that have been taken to provide artificial limbs, to pay statutory compensation and, where appropriate, to offer alternative work to the persons concerned.
  120. 120 None of these cases appears to raise any issues directly related to the exercise of trade union rights.
  121. 121 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Right to Strike
  122. 122 The complainants allege that the right to strike has been recognised as a " fundamental right " by the Government, but that the Government takes drastic action to break any strike and allows the police to interfere illegally with the trade union rights of the workers.
  123. 123 The Government states that the right to strike is a fundamental right under the Constitution. It is exercised subject to the conditions laid down in sections 10 (3), 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Contraventions are subject to the penal provisions of the Act but this course is rarely pursued.
  124. 124 The Committee has always applied the principle that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. In the present case, however, the allegations are in such general terms that the Committee considers them to be too vague to permit of their being examined on their merits.