ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 371, Marzo 2014

Caso núm. 2512 (India) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 21-AGO-06 - Casos en seguimiento cerrados por falta de información de parte de la organización querellante o del Gobierno al término de dieciocho meses contados desde la fecha del último examen de los casos

Visualizar en: Francés - Español

Go to:

  1. 72. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns alleged acts of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union affairs through the creation of a puppet union, dismissals, suspensions and transfers of trade union members, arbitrary reduction of wages, physical violence and lodging of false criminal charges against its members, at its November 2012 meeting [see 365th Report, paras 79–87]. On that occasion, the Committee expected that the cases concerning dismissed workers still pending before the courts would be concluded without delay and urged the Government to keep it informed of the outcome. It also requested the complainant to provide all relevant updated information regarding all the allegations of unfair labour practices, including cases of suspension, show cause notices and other disciplinary actions, as well as allegations of filing, by an employer, of false criminal charges against trade unionists in the basis of which they have been subsequently dismissed. Moreover, the Committee once again requested the Government to encourage the government of Tamil Nadu to address the matter of the necessity to adopt legislative provisions in furtherance of trade union rights and to provide information on all measures taken in order to bring legislation into conformity with freedom of association principles.
  2. 73. In its communication dated 2 April 2013, the Government furnishes details of the cases filed by dismissed employees as per the information provided by the management of the MRF Arakonam plant. Accordingly, the following dismissal cases are pending before the High Court of Madras: M. Subramani and P.N. Ravinder (both dismissed on 18 March 2004 for stoning the company bus). Furthermore, the following dismissal cases are pending before the Industrial Tribunal of Chennai: D. Runsted (dismissed on 5 January 2011 due to low performance), T.N. Ramesh (dismissed on 5 January 2011 due to low performance), A. Shajahan (dismissed on 5 January 2011 due to intimidation), K. Raghupathy (dismissed on 5 January 2011 due to intimidation), A. Murali (dismissed on 5 January 2011 due to intimidation and abusing), R. Mohan (dismissed on 24 February 2012 due to absenteeism), K. Sivalingam (dismissed on 21 May 2012 due to low performance), T. Sekar (dismissed on 19 June 2012 due to instigation of stay in strike) and L. Harikrishnan (dismissed on 26 November 2012 due to absenteeism).
  3. 74. The Government further states that the management appointed an independent external person as inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry into the charges levelled against those employees. According to the Government, the inquiry has been conducted following the principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer, after examining the witnesses and evidence, has submitted the findings report. The charges have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the inquiry officer has found them guilty of the charges levelled against them. The order of termination has been passed considering the gravity of the misconduct, past record of workmen and as per the Certified Standing Orders applicable. The Commissioner of Labour of Chennai also observed that the dismissal cases are pending before the appropriate legal forum. The Government adds that in view of the pendency of the cases before judiciary, no further action could be taken by the Government.
  4. 75. The Government also indicates that, as per the inputs from the government of Tamil Nadu, they have taken note of the recommendations of the Committee concerning the allegations of unfair labour practices. It further explains that the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have taken prompt action on the industrial disputes raised by the union and disposed them in accordance with prevailing law in this regard. The State Government cannot interfere in the functioning of courts.
  5. 76. Concerning the recommendation to bring the legislation of the government of Tamil Nadu in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, including the adoption of legislative provisions that further the goal of preventing anti-union discrimination and the infringement of trade union rights, the Government asserts that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides for a framework for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. It adds that it brought various amendments in the Industrial Disputes Act on 15 September 2010, which provide for the establishment of a Grievance Redress Machinery in every industrial establishment employing 20 or more workmen. The Government finds that in Tamil Nadu vibrant conciliation machinery with requisite expertise to meet the new challenges has been put in place, and that the existing provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and rules made thereunder prescribe elaborate procedures for resolution of disputes and provide for mechanisms to address the issues raised by the trade unions. The Government further adds that the Trade Union Act, 1926, does not provide for the recognition of trade unions, but that the issue of enacting legislation in this regard was deliberated in the tripartite consultative committee, namely the State Labour Advisory Board, on 30 January 2013, and the subject is under examination of the State Government.
  6. 77. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. Concerning the anti-union dismissals denounced by the complainant, the Committee deeply regrets that two cases are still pending before the High Court of Madras although almost ten years have elapsed since the termination of employment of the relevant employees. The Committee recalls that, in a case in which proceedings concerning dismissals had already taken 14 months, the Committee requested the judicial authorities, in order to avoid a denial of justice, to pronounce on the dismissals without delay and emphasized that any further undue delay in the proceedings could in itself justify the reinstatement of these persons in their posts [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 827]. Considering that justice delayed is justice denied, the Committee firmly expects that these cases will be concluded without any further delay and urges the Government to provide copies of the rulings as soon as they are handed down. Observing that in a communication dated 27 October 2010, the Government had indicated that 31 dismissal cases were pending in court, the Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the outcome of the remaining judicial proceedings. Furthermore, the Committee urges once again the Government to provide detailed observations regarding the status of the cases of allegedly false criminal charges brought against members and officers of the MRF United Workers’ Union and of the cases concerning alleged transfers of union members because of their union membership or activities.
  7. 78. With regard to the Committee’s previous recommendations that the Government actively consider the adoption of legislative provisions in furtherance of trade union rights to bring legislation into line with the principles of freedom of association, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of the deliberations of the State Labour Advisory Board on 30 January 2013 and of the examination by the State Government of the issue regarding the enactment of legislation regarding recognition of trade unions. Considering that the absence of a clear objective and precise procedure for determining the most representative union has led to the lack of resolution of this matter and has fomented continuing conflict within the company, which is not conducive to harmonious industrial relations, the Committee firmly expects that the Government will actively consider, in full and frank consultations with the social partners, establishing objective rules for the designation of the most representative union for collective bargaining purposes. Furthermore, the Committee once again requests the Government to give due consideration to the adoption of legislative provisions that further the goal of preventing anti-union discrimination including by providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee notes the adoption in 2010 of amendments to the Industrial Dispute Act which provide for the establishment of a grievance redress machinery, but once again recalls the need to amend the relevant provisions of the Act to ensure that suspended workers and trade unions may approach the court directly, without being referred to by the State Government.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer