Definitive Report - Report No 153, March 1976

• COMPLAINT PRESENTED BY THE CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS WEST BENGAL COMMITTEE, THE UNITED TRADES UNION CONGRESS, THE CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES' UNION, THE TEXMACO WORKERS' UNION AND THE HINDUSTAN STEEL EMPLOYEES' UNION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

69. The Committee recalls that in March and April 1972 the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) (West Bengal Committee) complained of occupation of its trade union premises, of threats and violent assaults directed against its officers and members, and of interference with trade union activities at various of its branches in the State of West Bengal, all allegedly perpetrated by "rowdies" in the pay of the ruling Congress Party and with the complicity of the local authorities and police. The Government replied in July and December 1972 and the Committee considered the case in its 135th Report (paragraphs 27-68), where it took the view that a situation involving a large number of unions affiliated to the complainant organisations was of a sufficiently serious nature, since it involved not only physical violence and destruction of property, but also the severe restriction of the free exercise of trade union rights, as to warrant stringent measures being taken by the authorities to restore a normal situation. The Committee also found that the public authorities had often failed to act in a manner calculated to ensure protection of trade union rights. Since, however, there appeared to be a general improvement in the situation the Committee recommended the Governing Body to decide that the case did not call for further examination.

1. 70. Upon receipt of these conclusions the complainants wrote that the Government had seriously misrepresented the facts in its reply and that the situation continued to be intolerable. Detailed allegations similar to those made previously were made at this time and from these it appeared that trade union leaders and members had been murdered, seriously beaten and forcibly prevented from going to their places of work. When this information was forwarded to the Government for its comments, it took the position that since the case had already been considered by the Committee and conclusions formulated, the matter was, in effect, res judicata and could not be reopened.
2. 71. The Government was informed that according to the rules of procedure in force a complainant organisation was given one month after the presentation of its complaint to provide any information in substantiation of its case but that this rule did not prevent the complainant from submitting fresh allegations on new facts involving matters of freedom of association and trade union rights, since no time limit was stipulated for the submission of such further allegations, which are dealt with as they arise. The Government requested a list of specific points to be drawn up on which to send its observations. The Committee considered this request at its 65th meeting in November 1973 and the following list of points was forwarded to the Government on 23 November 1973:
3. (1) The continuing occupation of the Sri Annapurna Cotton Mill Workers' Union and Bengal Enamel Sramik Karmachari Union by alleged Congress unionists.
4. (2) The alleged violent prevention of workers from going to and from their places of work at the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, Kalyami spinning mills and Texmaco factory in Belgharia, as well as the West Bengal Government enterprises, Westing House Saxby Farmer Ltd. and the Durgapur Project Employees' Union.
5. (3) The acts of terrorism perpetrated and repeated in the districts around the Sen-Raleigh Employees' Union offices and those of the Jay Engineering Works Union in Calcutta-45 and Perganas-24, the AVB Employees' Union at Durgapur as well as the Durgapur Project Employees' Union, and the cases of violent interference with trade union activity listed by the complainants in Enclosure A to their first communication of 6 April.
6. (4) The dismissals of workers in Westing House Saxby Farmer Ltd. and Durgapur Project Ltd., on grounds of prolonged absenteeism, even though the West Bengal Government was informed by letters from several local members of Parliament that these persons could not get to work because they were physically restrained by rival unionists.
7. (5) The beatings, violence and intimidation of union members which took place on 16 December 1972 in J.K. Aluminium Township and Kalyani spinning mills, as well as a subsequent similar attack on the latter factory on 18 December of the same year.
8. (6) The murder of Sri Jiban Krishna Debnath, an employee of the Durgapur Steel Project on 28 December and the subsequent armed attacks on union members during the funeral of Debnath.
9. (7) The arrest of the General Secretary of the Seva Pratishthan Employees' Union on 8 January 1973 and the attack on the CITU leader of the Asanaol district, Sri Chandra Sekkar Mukherjee, and police beatings of persons accompanying the latter on 8 January 1973 and the arrests of Dhabaludu Bhattacherjee and of persons accompanying the latter at Burnpur on 28 March 1973.
10. (8) The forcing of CITU members to join the Congress union in the Naxalbari tea-growing area.
11. (9) The arrests without trial of Sri Kali Ghosh, Sri Ramswar Mandal, Sri Aloke Mazumder, Sri Lal Mohan and Sri Dipak Ganguly on 25 and 26 January and 6 February 1973.
12. (10) The beatings and stabbings taking place at Jay Engineering Works in early February of that year.
13. (11) The attacks on and extortion of money from workers of Jay Engineering Works Ltd., bus workers in Bishnupur Town and the Bengal lamp factory.
14. (12) The murder of Sri Runi Roy, leader of the agricultural labourers in Dhanirumpur on 13 February 1973.
15. (13) The arrest of CITU leaders in the Himalaya paper and cardboard mills in Calcutta.
16. (14) The harassment, intimidation and assaults on workers of Hindustan Motors Ltd.
17. (15) The attacks on union members and premises during meetings in the Burn (Refractory) factory and the Bengal Paper Mill Mazdoor Union (Ballavpore).
18. (16) The mass arrests of CITU workers and officers on 21 February 1973.
19. (17) The assaults on 100 workers in the Bengal paper mills, Burn (Refractory) Ltd. and J.K. Aluminium Ltd. on 30 June 1973.
20. (18) The murder of Sri Babulal Jadav of J.K. Aluminium on 25 June 1973.
21. (19) The repeated and widespread attempts of alleged Congress unionists to constrain CITU members to sign application forms for the Congress union.
22. (20) The fact that many of those known to have been involved in the beatings, stabbings and extortions are armed and at large and apparently not hindered in any way by the police.
23. (21) The chronic refusal of the civil authorities to intervene in most of the cases listed above.
24. (22) The violent situation in the Liaghia, Lizahill and Chongtong tea-growing districts.
25. (23) The announcement of the Chief Executive Officer of the Administration of the Dock Labour Board, Calcutta, referred to in the complainants' letter of 14 July 1973, in which it is stipulated that no worker of the Board is permitted to participate in the activities of, or associate himself in any way with, any organisation which there is the slightest reason to think has a political aspect.
26. 72. Subsequently a number of complaints emanating from the same trade union organisation were received containing allegations similar in nature to those previously submitted. Communications alleging infringements of trade union rights were sent by the CITU (West Bengal Committee) on 8, 11, 18 and 19 November (three communications), 22 November and 13 December 1973, and on 1 and 5 January, and 16 and 22 February 1974. These were forwarded to the Government of India.
27. 73. The Government wrote on 20 December 1973 stating that it was preparing observations on the list of Points sent in November and requesting a further consolidated list of points on which the Committee might wish to have its observations, covering all subsequent complaints from the CITU and asking also that a closing date for such complaints be set. The Government was informed that according to the procedure in force no time limit is stipulated for the submission of further allegations.
28. 74. On 16 April 1974, the Government of India sent to the Director-General a communication stating that the complaints alleging infringements of trade union rights were being transmitted direct to the Government of India without any preliminary scrutiny by the ILO or by the Committee, even though it had been observed that some of the allegations related to matters not germane to trade union rights. The Government referred to paragraph 16 of the Committee's 111th Report, where it is stated that the Director-General should have the discretion, without waiting for the Committee's meeting, to contact the complainant organisation direct in order to point out to it that the procedure before the Committee only aims at dealing with questions of freedom of association and to request it to indicate the specific points in this field which it wishes to have examined by the Committee. The Government stated further that in view of the fact that the established procedure provides that supplementary information from the complainant should be obtained within a period of one month and that governments will only be called upon to answer substantiated complaints, the question of direct transmission to governments ought not to arise. The Government stated also that since the allegations made by the CITU concerned matters very similar in nature to those already raised in earlier communications, there might really be no case for treating them as fresh allegations. It was the Government's view that these complaints only multiplied the illustrations already given in support of old allegations and were not different from those already considered by the Committee.
29. 75. The Government of India stated also that it strongly felt that the Committee on Freedom of Association should decline to entertain complaints or should dismiss them if it was satisfied that the avenues of redress available under the national law or practice had not been tried and exhausted before taking the matter to the ILO and it asked that this point of view be put to the Committee.
30. 76. In relation to the complaints which had been received since the previous list of points was forwarded, the Government wrote that if the Committee took the view that these complaints should be considered as fresh allegations, it would like the Committee to draw up a list of specific points relating to alleged infringements of trade union rights by the Government on which the observations of the Government of India were required.
31. 77. In these circumstances the Committee decided, at its session in May 1974, to address a reply to the Government incorporating the following:
32. (a) Paragraph 16 of the 111th Report concerns complaints received which do not refer, or refer only very indirectly, to cases of infringement of trade union rights. As regards the complaints made by the CITU, these appeared to deal very specifically with such infringements since they referred in detailed and substantiated form to deaths, stabbings, assaults and robbery of trade union leaders allegedly because of their trade union activities, and to serious damage and obstruction of trade union premises.
33. (b) Although the fresh allegations which had been received were similar in nature to those already considered by the Committee in relation to this case, this related only to the nature of the extreme violence involved. The persons and premises allegedly attacked were not the same, although all were connected with the CITU or its affiliated unions. The Committee could not dismiss fresh allegations of murders, assaults, intimidation, arrests and large-scale closure of trade union premises on the grounds that it had already considered similar questions raised by the complainants in the past.
34. (c) As regards the question of exhausting national remedies, the Committee recalled that it would take into account the fact that a right of appeal provided for by national law had not been exercised, and that although it could not consider itself bound by any rule that national procedures of redress must be exhausted, it was nevertheless its established practice to postpone for a reasonable time its examination of cases pending before independent national tribunals, the procedure of which offered appropriate guarantees, when it considered that the decisions of these tribunals were likely to provide it with further information, as long as it was of the opinion that no further prejudice would be caused by such delay to the party whose rights were alleged to be infringed.
35. (d) In order to co-operate to the fullest extent with the Government in respect of these very serious allegations, the Committee requested the Government to send its observations as soon as possible on the following points raised by the complainants in their communications mentioned above:
36. (i) the arrests, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, of Mukul Baisya, Parimal Bhattacharya and Nirod Das, all officers of the Hindustan Motor Workers' Union, and of Sukumar Das, Assistant Secretary, and Saman Gope, member of the Bengal Paper Mill Mazdoor Union, Raniganj, on 4 April 1974;
37. (ii) the assaults on and dismissals of Biswanath Chatterjee, Manik Banerjee, Niswanath Khan, Lalmohon Karmakar, officers of the Bengal Paper Mill Mazdoor Union of Raniganj between February and September 1973;
38. (iii) the burning and beating of Narayan Gore of the Bengal Paper Mill Mazdoor Union on 5 November 1973;
39. (iv) the occupation and destruction of 371 union offices listed in the Memorandum of the West Bengal Committee of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions on Terrorist Attacks on CITU and Other Democratic Trade Unions and Infringement of Trade Union Functions, submitted to Dr. Gopaldas Nag, Labour Minister, Government of West Bengal, at the meeting of the State Labour Advisory Board with the Central Trade unions on 10 September 1973;
40. (v) the dismissal of 585 workers, whose names are listed in the Memorandum referred to in (iv), who were forcibly prevented from going to their places of work;
41. (vi) the alleged murders of the following trade unionists: Manindra Dhar (Bengal Waterproof Works) on 24 May 1972; Joy Narayan (Naihati Jute Mills) on 8 July 1972; Baula Singh (Hukum Chand Jute Mills) on 20 April 1972; Kaileswar Hazarm (Bengal Paper Mill, Raninganj) on 20 February 1973; Babulal Jadav (J.K. Aluminium) on 26 June 1973;
42. (vii) the eviction from their homes of the 43 trade union leaders listed in the Memorandum mentioned in (iv) above;
43. (viii) the stabbing to death of Ranjan Biswas and the stabbing of four other workers in the "A" Zone, Durgapur Steel Township on 18 November 1973;
44. (ix) the arrests of the following persons at the offices of the Bengal Paper Mill Mazdoor Union at Ballarpur, Raniganj:
45. A. on 18 October 1973:
46. Monoranjan Chatterjee, Milon Bowri, Bhaskar Dey, Dulal Dhibar, Ashoke Bhattacharjee;
47. B. on 4 November 1973:
48. Sukumar Bery, Lakhinarayan Mukherjee;
49. C. on 18 November 1973:
50. Dulal Dhibar (on bail after arrest on 18.10.73), Fatick Roy, Bhaskar Dey (on bail after arrest on 18.10.73), Sadhan Garai;
51. (x) the arrest of Haradhan Roy, General Secretary of the Refractory and Ceramic Workers' Union and Aluminium Mazdoor Union, and Sitala Tewari, a member of the same union;
52. (xi) the attack on Raghunath Kusari, General Secretary of the Garden Reach Sutakal Shramik Union and CITU General Council member, on the night of 17 November 1973;
53. (xii) the stabbing of Kailash Chawbey, Texmaco Workers' Union leader, on the night of 12 December 1973;
54. (xiii) the arrests, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, of Hyder Ali and Dipak Badyakar, CITU members of the Raniganj Paper Mill on 31 December 1973 and 4 January 1974 respectively;
55. (xiv) the looting of the union offices of the Texmaco Workers' Union on the night of 3 February 1974;
56. (xv) the obstruction of some 200 CITU workers from going to their places of work on 18 November 1973 at the Texmaco Factory, Belgharia;
57. (xvi) the beating of Bimal Mitra (18 November 1973), Sheo Samkar Misra (16 December 1973), the stabbing of Karlas Chole (10 December 1973) and Ram Ajodolha (17 December 1973) and the shooting of Hetu Presand and Abani Bhowmic (12 February 1974), all leading members of the Texmaco Workers' Union;
58. (xvii) the grenade attack on the house of Ardhendu Bakshi, Joint Secretary of the Hindustan Steel Employees' Union, Durgapur, on 21 February 1974, with consequent injuries to himself and his family;
59. (xviii) in all of the cases listed of assaults and attacks the complainants allege that the police were informed and in many cases the attackers identified to the civil authorities, but that these persons have been neither arrested, nor questioned, the complaints have not been investigated and the police have allegedly remained inactive.
60. (e) The Committee asked the Government, in view of the particularly serious nature of these allegations, to inform it of what measures were being taken or were contemplated to protect trade union leaders, members and premises in the State of West Bengal.
61. 78. In a further communication, dated 6 May 1974, the CITU stated that more than 300 unions belonging to their organisation, as well as other central organisations had been forcibly occupied by anti-social elements of the ruling Congress Party with the help of the police. Many areas in the State were out of bounds for trade union officials and in these areas any open functioning of unions was impossible. A meeting of the West Bengal State Labour Advisory Committee had been held in Calcutta on 11 and 19 September 1972 at which the West Bengal Labour Minister had agreed to take steps to restore union offices to the bona fide unions, but no steps had been taken to do so. The complainants gave detailed information concerning some 360 trade unions the offices of which are said to have been looted, burnt or forcibly kept inoperative by men belonging to the ruling Congress Party. A further list of unions is given in which, the complainants state, hundreds of workers have been forcibly prevented from reporting for their duties. The complainants also list the names of workers said to have been dismissed by their employers for forced absenteeism, and the names of workers alleged to have been murdered or assaulted. In addition, the names of 43 trade union leaders stated to have been evicted from their homes are mentioned by the complainants.
62. 79. The Hindustan Steel Employees' Union, in a communication dated 2 July 1974, stated that it was becoming impossible to carry out normal trade union activities owing to the repeated murderous attacks on union activists by anti-social elements. Since the 1972 general election, these complainants added, eight of their active trade unionists, whose names are supplied, had been murdered. In a further communication from the same organisation, dated 11 December 1974, it was stated that trade union activities were still being severely restricted in West Bengal, and that the police were rendering all possible help to those hired by the Congress Party to launch attacks against its opponents.
63. 80. Further allegations of attacks against trade unionists, including threats of murder, physical assault and dismissals, are contained in a communication from the CITU dated 27 November 1974. In this communication the complainants refer to meetings with the State Labour Advisory Board of West Bengal in September 1973 when, according to the complainants, the Labour Minister accepted the union's demand for the reinstatement of workers who had been dismissed for forced absenteeism. Subsequently, the complainants add, in October 1974, at a further meeting with the State Labour Advisory Board, the attacks on workers were condemned and recommendations were made that workers dismissed for absenteeism should be reinstated and that union offices which had been forcibly occupied should be vacated and restored to the unions. The complainants state, however, that in spite of these recommendations two employees who are trade union officials in Jadavpur University and had been dismissed, have not been reinstated.
64. 81. In a communication dated 7 December 1974 the CITU gave the names of 18 workers and leaders of their affiliated organisation, the Bengal Paper Mills Mazdoor Union, who had been arrested and detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. In all, the complainants add, 43 persons had been detained but 25 had been released under orders issued by the High Court of Calcutta. The complainants allege that the 18 persons still detained have all been falsely accused, and that the Government, unable to suppress the CITU and its affiliates by terror and repression, has resorted to detention of important trade union leaders without trial in order to make the unions ineffective.
65. 82. The names of 14 other trade unionists belonging to two unions in the Darjeeling district and alleged to have been detained without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act are given in a communication from the CITU dated 11 January 1975. Again, the complainants allege, false charges were brought against these persons. Giving details of the charges brought against some of these persons, the complainants contend that they could have been tried before the ordinary courts. However, orders for their detention were made on the eve of their discharge in an attempt to suppress the CITU unions and foist upon the workers the unions supporting the ruling Congress Party.
66. 83. In a communication dated 26 January 1975 the CITU stated that 3 of the 18 persons mentioned in paragraph 81 above had been released under court orders, but that the other 15 were still being detained without trial.
67. 84. The CITU, on 24 June 1975, transmitted a telegram in which it was alleged that, following a general strike in West Bengal on 20 June 1975, the Congress supporters had unleased a new spate of violence with the assistance of the police. The complainants stated that the Vice-President of the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works Labour Union had been murdered on 22 June, and some 50 union leaders arrested.
68. 85. In a further communication, received immediately prior to the present session of the Committee, the CITU transmitted a detailed report, covering the period February 1973 to May 1975, on the attacks made on the unions, their leaders and members.
69. 86. The Government transmitted its observations on the complaints in a communication dated 25 September 1975. In this communication the Government supplies observations on the list of points formulated by the Committee, at its session in May 1974 (see paragraph 77 above), for transmission to the Government and on the issues raised in the subsequent allegations made by the CITU.
70. 87. With regard to the points raised by the Committee on which the Government was requested to comment, the Government supplies the following information:
71. Point (i): It is a fact that Mukul Baisya, Parimal Bhattacharya and Nirod Das were detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) on 17 October, 4 November and 7 November 1973 respectively. They were, however, detained for indulging in violent and lawless activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order. While Mukul Baisya and Parimal Bhattacharya were subsequently released by the Advisory Board (the legally constituted reviewing authority for such detentions) on 8 and 13 December 1973 respectively, Nirod Das was released on the orders of the State High Court on 11 April 1974.
72. Sukumar Das and Saman Gope were detained under the MISA on 30 March 1974 for unruly behaviour and activities detrimental to the maintenance of public peace and order. It should be stated that the detention of these persons was not in order to curb their lawful trade union activities but to prevent them from disturbing public order by rowdy behaviour.
73. Point (ii): Biswanath Chatterjee, Stock Analysis Section-in-Charge, Manik Banerjee, Clerk, finishing goods, Biswanath Khan, Paper Transporting Mazdoor and Lal Mohan Karmakar, Welder I Class, all of Bengal Paper Mill, Raniganj, were discharged from service by the management on 2 September, 28 August, 29 August and 25 August 1973 respectively, for prolonged absence from duty without prior permission or intimation. They did not take up their duties in spite of the management offering them an opportunity to do so. These persons were neither assaulted nor were they prevented from taking up their duties.
74. Point (iii): Narayan Gore, an employee of Burn and Co. was not beaten by the police, as falsely alleged by the complainant organisation. He was arrested on 5 November 1973 in connection with a specific case. The thatched but where he was living was set on fire by some unknown miscreants on 27 November 1973 but the fire was immediately extinguished by the police patrol party and the fire brigade. A police case was registered relating to this incident.
75. Points (iv), (v) and (vii): These allegations are rather vague and sweeping in nature. The State Government, after proper inquiries, has indicated that no particular comments can be offered on these omnibus allegations in the absence of specific particulars. Moreover, they do not find any information to corroborate the allegations.
76. Point (vi): The murder on 24 May 1972 of Manindra Dhar, trade unionist of Bengal Waterproof Works, was not established on inquiry by the West Bengal Government. Regarding the murder of Joy Narayan, a worker of the Naihati Jute Mills, he was assaulted on 5 July 1972 with lethal weapons by a group of persons belonging to the rival party. He died on the following day. All legal measures were, however, taken; a case was registered under the Indian Penal Code and three persons were arrested in this connection. Bhola Singh, a CPI leader and an employee of Hukumchand Jute Mills, Naihati, was reported murdered and a case was registered; but due to lack of evidence the case was disposed of as not being substantiated (27 September 1973). On 21 February 1973, Kailash Hazam, an employee of Bengal Paper Mill was found murdered due to bomb injuries. A case was registered. As a result of a clash on the night of 25 June 1973 between the supporters of the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) and the followers of the CITU, at Jaykay Nagar Aluminium Factory, over the realisation of union subscriptions, Babulal Jadav, a CITU supporter and an employee of the factory, died of a gun-shot head injury. A case was registered and nine INTUC supporters of the rival camp were arrested in this connection.
77. Point (viii): It is a fact that Ranjan Biwas, a follower of the complainant organisation, was murdered on the night of 18 November 1973 in the Durgapur steel township. Three persons were arrested and cases were instituted against them.
78. Point (ix) : The persons listed in sub-group a under this point, were not arrested at the offices of Bengal Paper Mill Mazdoor Union at Ballavpore, as made out in the complaint They were apprehended on 18 October 1973 while they were indulging in violent activities.
79. The allegation of the arrests on 4 November 1973 of Sukumar Bez and Lakshmi Kanta Mukherji listed in sub-group B is not borne out on inquiry.
80. As for the names listed in sub-group C, the facts are that Dulal Dhibar, an employee of the Bengal Paper Mill, Ballavpore, Raniganj, was detained under the MISA on 18 November 1973 for indulging in specific violent activities. Fatik Roy and Bhaskar Dey were arrested on 18 October 1973 in connection with police cases but they were subsequently released on bail. Again, on 18 November 1973, Fatik Roy was arrested in connection with another police case for committing theft. Sadhan Garai was taken into custody on 22 October 1973 for smuggling activities; the case ended in a charge being brought against him.
81. Point (x): Haradhan Roy, belonging to the Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI (M), also a member of the Legislative Assembly and General Secretary of the Refractory and Ceramic Workers' Union and Aluminium Mazdoor Union, was arrested on 18 October 1973, not for any trade union activity, but for some specific offences.
82. Sitala Tewari, a member of the Refractory and Ceramic Workers' Union, was apprehended for indulging in violent activities and since he posed a threat to law and order in the industrial complex. He was detained under the MISA on 18 November 1973, not for any trade union activities, but for specific antisocial activities. He was subsequently released on the orders of the State High Court.
83. Point (xi): Raghunath Kushari was involved in an incident in which both the ruling Congress Party and the CPI (M) lodged complaints of assault against each other. At the intervention of the local leaders belonging to both the parties an amicable settlement was arrived at and peace was restored in the area.
84. Point (xii): The reported incident arose out of the intense inter-union rivalry existing between the CPI (M)-sponsored Texmaco Workers' Union and the majority Texmaco Employees' Union. Despite the "Bandh" (closure) call given by the leftist parties on 17 November 1973 the Texmaco factory functioned normally. A few workers, belonging to the CPI (M)-sponsored union, including Kailash Choubey who did not work on 17 November 1973, were confronted on reporting for duty subsequently (on 18 and 19 November 1973) by the supporters of the majority union. The simmering disaffection led to an attack by CPI (M) members on the supporters of the majority union which culminated in a knife attack being made on Choubey. A case was instituted against four persons accused by Kailash Choubey of assaulting him. The case is pending investigation.
85. Point (xiii): Here again the incidents had a close link with the acute inter-union rivalry prevailing in the region since February 1973 between the INTUC and CITU-sponsored unions. Hyder Ali and Dipak Badyakar were detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act on 31 December 1973 and 4 January 1974, respectively, solely for activities prejudicial to law and order.
86. Point (xiv): Inquiries made by the State Government reveal that there was no accurate information to substantiate the allegation that the union office of the complainant organisation was looted on the night of 3 February 1974. There were, however, frequent clashes between the supporters of the rival camps on the night of 12 February 1974. All possible action was taken by the Government to maintain law and order and to afford protection to the personnel within and outside the factory premises.
87. Point (xv): Inquiries made reveal that on 18 November 1973, about 150 supporters of the CITU were prevented from entering the factory at Texmaco, Belghoria, by the supporters of the rival group. However, before the clash could take an ugly turn, timely action was taken by the police. Subsequently, a tripartite meeting was called in the office of the Texmaco manager, in which both the political groups participated. An amicable settlement was arrived at and subsequently the CITU workers started attending to their work in the factory regularly without any trouble or obstruction from the rival group.
88. Point (xvi): As regards the alleged assault on Bimal Mitra on 18 November 1973, although a case was registered, the name of the assailant was not mentioned; the case could not be established.
89. The assault on Sankar Misra on 16 December 1973 was not established on inquiry.
90. The name Karlas Chole mentioned in the ILO's letter is not correct; the actual name is Kailash Choubey. The knife attack on Kailash Coubey has already been dealt with under point (xii) above.
91. There was neither any complaint of an attack on nor registration of any case regarding Ram Ajodha Singh, referred to in the complaint. The alleged shooting incident of Netu Prasad was grossly exaggerated. The fact is that while Netu Prasad of CPI (M), an employee of Texmaco, was proceeding towards his quarters, a cracker exploded just behind him causing him slight splinter injuries. A case was registered on the complaint lodged by Netu Prasad which was duly investigated. No complaint was, however, made with the local police regarding the shooting of Abami Bhowmik, a worker of Benin Engineering Ltd., Belghoria.
92. Point (xvii): An inquiry revealed that the existing rivalry between the Hindustan Steel Employees' Union, an affiliate of the complainant organisation, and the INTUC-led unions of the Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur, was perhaps the main reason behind the incident. Ardhendu Dikshit (and not Bakshi) did sustain minor injuries as a result of the explosion of a bomb thrown into his room. However, a case was registered; it was duly investigated and all legal measures were taken. Also, all possible precautionary measures were taken to prevent recurrence of such attacks.
93. Point (xviii): Since the general elections in 1972, the members of the CPI (M) and their sympathisers had striven ceaselessly to recapture their lost hold in the industrial belt of the West Bengal State. Consequently, there were frequent clashes between the supporters of the rival groups professing allegiance to the CITU, the complainant organisation, and those which had the support of the ruling party. The internecine conflicts arising out of the inter-union rivalry among the unions had been the root cause for industrial unrest in the State. The Government of India would like to point out that, as can be discerned from the factual account given above, the police at no time remained inactive or took a partisan attitude towards the situation. A number of clashes took place over local issues and union rivalry, particularly at Raniganj. The police arrested a number of persons belong to both the groups, irrespective of party affiliations, for professed unlawful activities. At no time did political considerations influence the attitude towards the incidents or the action taken; every effort was made to protect the trade union members, their leaders and the party premises. Where the issues involved law and order problems, the state police machinery intervened actively and effectively and quickly restored stability and peace in the region. Every complaint lodged with the authorities was properly investigated and in all cases legal steps were taken. After proper investigation the culprits, wherever found guilty, were punished for acts of gross violence.
94. 88. With regard to the allegations made by the Hindustan Steel Employees' Union (paragraph 79) above, the Government supplies following information:
95. This complaint related to the reported murders/killings which took place mostly during 1972-73 in the Durgapur township.
96. The background to the events reported was provided by the rising tide in the violent activities of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of India (CPI-ML), which indulged in systematic killing of the CPI (Marxist) activists, Congress workers and police personnel. The deteriorating law and order situation in Durgapur was, however, brought back to normalcy due to the sustained efforts of the police and also the stabilisation of the situation after the general elections held in March 1972.
97. The facts revealed during the inquiries made into the allegations of the Hindustan Steel Employees' Union (HSEU) about the murder of eight active trade unionists of the Union are as under:
98. (A) Biswankan Banerjee was attacked on 28 May 1972 by some miscreants and later succumbed to the injuries sustained in the stabbing. A case was registered and seven persons, who were CPI (ML) supporters, were arrested and suitable action was taken against them.
99. (B) Chayan Chatterjee, another active member of the HSEU, was stabbed by a gang of persons on 14 June 1972. He succumbed to his injuries later. Twenty-four persons were arrested and charges were brought against them. The case is still pending.
100. (C) Bimal Chowdhury, another active member of the HSEU, was stabbed to death on 26 March 1973. Twelve persons were apprehended under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) but the case could not be proceeded with due to lack of evidence.
101. (D) Ranjan Biswas, belonging to the HSEU, was attacked and stabbed to death on 18 November 1973. A case was instituted which is at present sub judice.
102. (E) and (F) Both Ajit Kumar Dey Dulal and Sambu Sadan Kumar were employees of Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur. The former was found dead with multiple injuries while the latter was reported murdered at Poinchee Police Station, Pandua, District Hooghly. Although a case was instituted in connection with the death of the former, and four persons were arrested, it could not be proceeded with for want of sufficient evidence. No further details were available regarding the death of Sambu Sadan Kumar.
103. (G) Saranan Mukherjee, belonging to the active cadre of HSEU/CITU, was attacked on 16 June 1972 by a group of persons. He died on the spot. Fourteen persons were arrested in this connection but the case could not be proved because of lack of evidence.
104. In this connection also, the Government of India would like to point out that after the general elections in 1972 the CPI (M) leaders as well as HSEU workers became frustrated with their failure to gain public support. Attempting to regain their lost hold, they began to take part in trade union activities by organising public meetings, staging processions and taking recourse to poster campaigning. They also freely criticised the ruling part in power and propagated rigging of elections. In 1973, the central leaders of the CITU visited Durgapur on many occasions and held a number of public meetings. The lower formations of the HSEU gave wide publicity to such meetings through street corner speeches, posters, etc. During 1974, the CPI (M) sought assistance of other leftist parties to mobilise public support for a strike on the railways. The HSEU and its workers offered substantial help to this party. The combined leftist calls for state and national "bandhs" were also carried on without any interference from the public authorities. All this would conclusively prove that no restrictions were placed on the free exercise of trade union rights by the Hindustan Steel Employees' Union, as alleged in the complaint.
105. 89. As regards the allegations and information contained in the communications of the CITU dated 7 December 1974 (paragraph 81 above) and 26 January 1975 (paragraph 83 above), the Government supplies the following information:
106. The complainant organisation has alleged continued detention of 18 workers of the Bengal Paper Mills Mazdoor Union, an affiliate of the CITU. The facts, as ascertained from the State Government, are as follows:
107. (i) The provisions of the Preventive Detention Act were invoked only as a last resort when it became necessary to prevent people from indulging in activities which were patently prejudicial to law and order in the State. The Government would like to reiterate that such steps were taken neither as a means of political expediency nor with the purpose of restricting legitimate trade union activities. The grounds advanced for detention were always specific and the detention orders were subject to review by the Advisory Board, consisting of a retired high court judge as chairman and two servicing judicial officers. Moreover, the detainees were at liberty to move the State High Court or the Supreme Court against any order of detention passed against them.
108. (ii) The information received in respect of six persons, listed in the complaints, shows that they were served with detention orders by the detaining authorities duly authorised for the purpose on the specific charge of disturbing public order. These orders were subsequently confirmed by the advisory boards constituted for the purpose.
109. It may be pointed out that Bagala Bhattacharjee and Lakshman Roy (referred to in the Union's letter dated 26 January 1975) have filed writ petitions in the High Court of Calcutta, whereas Sukumar Das has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. In addition to Nagina Dosad (referred to in the Union's letter dated 26 January 1975), who was released on 1 January 1975, two more persons, viz. Biswanath Chatterjee and Manik Lal Chatterjee were also released on the order of the High Court on 14 May and 28 July 1975, respectively.
110. Information relating to the remaining 12 cases has not yet been received from the Government of West Bengal.
111. 90. With regard to the allegations contained in the communication from the CITU dated 11 January 1975 (paragraph 82 above), the Government supplies the following information:
112. The orders of detention and the grounds on which the 14 persons listed in the complaint were detained on various dates between December 1973 and April 1974 were the same [as those already described]. All the 14 persons were served with notices under the specific charge of disturbing public order; these orders were later confirmed by the advisory board. All these persons filed writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court; two of them were released on the orders of the High Court on 19 March 1975.
113. 91. With regard to the allegations contained in the telegram transmitted by the CITU on 24 June 1975 (paragraph 84 above), the Government states that the State Government's report on the incidents referred to in the telegram is still awaited.

D. D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 92. When it last examined the case the Committee observed that the main issue involved concerned the numerous cases of alleged violence perpetrated by the supporters of the ruling Congress Party against a large number of trade unions, principally those affiliated to the Centre of Indian Trade Unions, and against the leaders and members of the unions in an attempt to weaken these unions and strengthen those established by the ruling Congress Party. The Committee notes that all the complaints made subsequently contain similar allegations which again relate to numerous cases of violence, assault and destruction of trade union property, perpetrated by the supporters of the ruling Congress Party against CITU-affiliated unions and membership. Information is also supplied to the effect that a large number of trade unionists have died as a result of these incidents and that many have been detained by the authorities under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.
2. 93. Another issue which the Committee noted at its previous examination of the case - and which continues to constitute an allegation - is the part played by the police in either failing to put an end to the acts of violence or in actively supporting the campaign against the CITU and its affiliates.
3. 94. The Committee has already recalled that, in another case concerning India, it had observed that violence resulting from inter-union rivalry might constitute an attempt to impede the free exercise of trade union rights. The Committee added that, if this were the case, and if the acts in question were sufficiently serious, it would appear that the intervention of the authorities, and in particular the police, would be called for in order to provide adequate protection of these rights. The question of infringement of trade union rights by the Government would only arise to the extent to which it may have acted improperly on alleged assaults.
4. 95. The Committee notes with interest the detailed manner in which the Government has replied to the allegations made by the complainants.
5. 96. As regards the allegations relating to the detention of trade unionists under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, the Government indicates that these persons are or have been so detained because of their participation in acts of violence or other acts which constituted a threat to the maintenance of public order, and not on account of their trade union activities. In this connection, however, the Committee notes from the information supplied in the present case, and in another case relating to India, that in numerous cases where detained trade unions have appealed to the High Court, the High Court has set aside their detention orders. The Committee wishes to emphasise once again that the detention by the authorities of trade unionists concerning whom no grounds for detention are subsequently found is liable to involve restrictions of trade union rights and governments should take steps to ensure that the authorities concerned have instructions appropriate to obviate the danger of detention for trade union activities.
6. 97. As for the general situation in the State of West Bengal, the Committee notes the Government's statement that every effort has been made to protect the unions, their leaders and their premises. However despite the explanations given by the Government concerning the intervention by the authorities in individual cases to restore order and investigate acts of violence, the Committee considers that the continuing nature of the problem, as well as its gravity, can only lead to the conclusion that the measures already taken with a view to the restoration of a situation of normalcy, in which trade union activities can be pursued without hindrance, do not appear to have been adequate to deal with the difficult situation prevailing in West Bengal. It is therefore clear to the Committee that the very serious and widespread violence which continues to result from clashes between the supporters of the ruling Congress Party and CITU-affiliated unions and their members, calls for the adoption of more effective measures by the Government in order to restore a normal situation and to provide adequate protection for trade unionists and their organisations.