Collective Bargaining and Trade Union: A Decision Imbroglio at UPSRTC

Background of UPSRTC

Constituted on 1 June 1972, the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) is a public road transport corporation. Formed under Section 3 of Road Transport Corporation Act 1972, the corporation provides services in the state of Uttar Pradesh and adjoining states in north India. The corporation has a fleet of around 9,314 buses striving to provide comfortable and economical journey to passengers and earnings for self-sustenance and growth of the corporation. The corporation earns approximately over ₹67 million every day covering over 3 million kilometres catering to the travel needs of over 1.4 million people. The corporation provides a mix of low-cost, high-end and non-stop intercity (Platinum Line and Gold Line) bus services. The low-cost Janta Services ply on shuttle routes and urban and sub-urban areas in six select cities. As it is a government corporation, the business affairs are vested in the board of directors for management and direction as per the statute under which it was constituted; however, the policy decision-making powers are vested in the government. The corporation was reconstituted on 30 October 2003 owing to the formation of Uttarakhand. The corporation has been divided into 20 regions having a corporate office at Lucknow. Each region is further divided into 108 operational units including car section called depots. Each of these depots has workshops which provide maintenance facilities as well as assembly reconditioning, such as heavy maintenance, repair of vehicles, reconditioning of major assemblies, renovation of buses and construction of bodies on new chassis. Eight tyre retreading plants established at Allahabad, Agra, Bareilly, Etawah, Gorakhpur, Ghaziabad, Kanpur, Lucknow, Moradabad and Saharanpur are all maintained by the corporation. A separate car section has been established in Lucknow for repairs and maintenance of staff cars of the corporation and the state government.

Management

The corporation is financially autonomous and is not aided by the government in any manner; the management of UPSRTC is done by the board of directors with the managing director as the executive head. The board of directors consists of a chairman as the head and 5–17 directors, one-third from the central government and two-thirds from the state government. The state government appoints the directors. The other office-bearers of the corporation are additional managing director, chief general manager (operations, technical, administration), secretary corporation, finance controller, chief security officer, general managers of the functional areas—operations, bus station management, passenger amenities, personnel, management information services (MIS) and electronic data processing (EDP), technical, materials management and quality.

Human Resource

The corporation has a total strength of around 28,170 employees, including 44 class-I officers, 184 class-II officers, 22,598 class III (including over 15,472 conductors and drivers) 5,299 class-IV staff, 45 daily wage workers and 56 part-time workers. The average employee productivity can be worked out to approximately 68 km/employee/day.

The recruitment process is fully transparent. Essential and desirable qualifications are advertised. Reservation policy of the government for various categories is applicable. Drivers, conductors, LDC, cleaners and mazdoors, compilers, junior accountants are recruited directly. Lately, owing to overstaffing recruitment had been stopped, except for reserved categories and eligible apprentices in the last decade. The corporation considers recruitment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds. Superannuation and retirement of employees is at the age of 60 years. The retiring employee is entitled to the balance in his PF account, Group Insurance Scheme (GIS), encashment of leave, gratuity and pension (if applicable). The corporation’s training school is established in Kanpur which imparts training to drivers and technical staff. The corporation is a labour-intensive organization and has seven recognized unions.

Amenities to Passengers

The bus stations are classified as A, B, C and D in accordance with facilities available. Facilities include restrooms, toilets, drinking water, canteens, booking offices, lights, fans, seats and benches, timetable and fare chart display, enquiry counters, public address systems, public call offices (PCO), etc. The station incharge has complaint and suggestion books for passenger feedback. Passenger lounges of important bus stations are fitted with televisions. Distinguished citizens travel free in corporation buses and their expenses are borne by the concerned departments of the administration.

Transformation at UPSRTC

The Uttar Pradesh government in the year 2007 decided to develop the bus stations owned by UPSRTC under the public–private partnership (PPP) model. It also decided to denationalize the routes on which UPSRTC buses were plying in exclusivity to the private operators and is governed by the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act 1988.

Public–Private Partnership Decision

The Government of Uttar Pradesh initiated a move similar to the central government with the intention of improving public facilities under PPP schemes. The unique selling point (USP) of this scheme was that the government was not required to invest directly. A private partner would be identified through tendering who would invest and enjoy returns from the system for some specified time period; however, the ownership would not be divested by the government.

In 2007, the government decided to develop 274 bus stations owned by UPSRTC on the basis of PPP module. The government got the bus stations revalued in order to assess their present valuation, and also began the process of selection of bidders through request for qualifications and request for proposals.

The Dilemma

The valuation done by the government was much less than the actual valuation of the land. The government also intended to permit private operators to ply simultaneously from the same stations from where the buses of the state-owned corporation, UPSRTC, were operating. It also seemed that the government had an agenda to denationalize the routes.

The move to denationalize routes was perceived to give birth to unhealthy competition which would precipitate over time and would affect the income of the corporation adversely. The policies of the government triggered discontent amongst the employees and were criticized by the unions, though initially the unions pursued the issue independently. Unions sent representations to UPSRTC and the government independently, stating that the policy would be detrimental for the corporation and it would adversely affect the income of the corporation which would lead to its closure.

The Collective Bargaining

As many as half a dozen meetings were held with top-level officials of the corporation and senior officials of the state government. A meeting was held with the chief secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh. All attempts proved futile, as the government was insistent in implementing the policy. The labour unions were not given any assurance from the government; the employees were troubled that the government was eager to implement the scheme.

Officers’ association also joined the forum and the general secretary of the officers’ association persuaded all the unions to form a joint forum and thereafter pursue the issue before the government, so that the requisite pressure could be imposed on the government to change the policy.

In August 2007, the unions along with the officers’ association held a meeting at the headquarters of UPSRTC and finally decided that all of them would come together on a common platform. A committee was formed which incorporated the president of the employees union. The general secretary of the Roadways Karamchari Sanyukt Parishad and the general secretary of the officers’ association were appointed as the coordinators of this joint forum, namely, Adikari Karamchari Morcha, and R.K. Kureel was appointed as the convener of the Morcha.

The joint forum had a common agenda focusing on two issues:

one related to the denationalization of routes of UPSRTC and

A well-drafted joint representation was given to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to immediately desist from implementing the policies or else the unions would adopt the course of agitation for which the government would be held entirely responsible. There was no enthusiastic response from the government on the issue; however, the joint forum was invited for a meeting in September 2007 with the transport minister accompanied by senior officials of the state government that ended in a stalemate. The government was adamant in implementing its policies and the joint forum insisted that the policies should be dropped in the larger interest of the corporation.

The unrelenting attitude of the government compelled the joint forum to agitate. The joint forum gave a notice of agitation which was to begin in November 2007. In view of the notice of the joint forum, the government resorted to stern measures by initially issuing a gazette notification under the Essential Services Maintenance Act 1968 prohibiting the strike in the corporation for 6 months.

Further, the government invited the joint forum for a meeting which was headed by the chief secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, who was accompanied by police authorities, principal secretary home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, principal secretary of the Department of Transport and other senior officials. Senior police officials’ presence was ensured by the government in order to impose pressure on the employee union. The government was adamant and unrelenting on the subject and cautioned that if the employee unions indulged in activities like strike, they would resort to coercive methods in order to curb such an activity. The employee unions by way of the joint forum informed the government that if the scheme was not dropped or deferred, the joint forum would not stop the agitation and would proceed further on it.

The joint forum further gained the support of other unions of the state government and the Secretariat Union. These other unions placed their representations before the government in support of the representations tendered earlier by joint forum. Despite the same, the government did not pay any heed and proceeded with the policy.

Realizing the importance of the issue, the fourth estate took cognizance of the matter and started publishing various articles related to the issue in their papers. On 5 November 2007, an article appeared in the daily newspaper Hindustan Times captioned ‘End of the Road for UPSRTC’. The article highlighted that the future of UPSRTC and its employees was endangered owing to the privatization move of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. It was indicated in the article that the Government of Uttar Pradesh was planning to split the corporation into four subsidiaries and had also initiated the move to appoint a consultant in order to give 60 per cent shares of these subsidiaries to private parties.

The joint forum initially mobilized the district units by convening meetings at the district level and giving representations to the district officials to be forwarded to the government. Subsequently, they started agitation at the regional level which connotes a division and handed over their representations to the regional manager of UPSRTC, posted at the regional level and requested them to forward their representations to the headquarters of UPSRTC from where it could be sent to the government.

The Agitation

The government was adamant to continue with its policy and in the light of the same instructed the police to resort to coercive methods to crush any agitation by the union. Police raided the residences of all the leaders of the employee unions who were in the joint forum and few of them were arrested, but those who were not arrested took over the reins of agitation. The agitation was held on 10 December 2007 at the headquarters.

On the day of the agitation, the police on instructions from the government initially used tear gas and water cannons to deter the employees to proceed to the Vidhan Sabha. All restraining measures by the police proved futile, and the employees proceeded towards the Vidhan Sabha. The restraining efforts did not deter or dampen the spirits of the agitating employees. The police thereafter fired on the employees in which few employees were injured and the crowd was dispersed.

The office-bearers of the supporting unions of the state government immediately contacted the chief secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and threatened that the coercive attitude should immediately be stopped or else they would proceed on a statewide strike of all the departments of the state government. Immediately, the chief secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh spoke to the topmost authority and procured orders to stop the coercive measure with immediate effect.

All the arrested leaders were subsequently released but the government did not stay the policy and continued with it. The managing director of UPSRTC was removed and the charge of the post was given to the principal secretary of the Department of Transport. This was done so that all the proposals of the corporation could be initiated by him as the managing director of UPSRTC, and immediately approved by him in the capacity of principal secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Transport. Subsequently, the government felt that the transport commissioner was not cooperating in the matter. The post of transport commissioner was also given to the principal secretary, Department of Transport of Government of Uttar Pradesh in order to facilitate smooth movement of all the papers related to the implementation of the policy.

The joint forum again placed a representation to the chief minister of the state of Uttar Pradesh to intervene in the matter and to stay the proceedings related to the development of bus stations under the PPP module and de-notification of nationalized routes. The government proceeded with the denationalization scheme and published the same in the official gazette inviting objections on it. The Roadways Karamchari Sanyukt Parishad as decided by the joint forum placed a detailed representation before the government stating cogent reasons which should be considered by the hearing authority so that the denationalization could be scrapped. The hearing authority was an official of the Department of Transport and a senior officer of the government and did not entertain the objections. He rejected and disallowed the petition placed before him by the Roadways Karamchari Sanyukt Parishad and others.

Imbroglio

On 12 December 2007, the government issued the notification of privatization of nationalized routes. In view of the notification, the Roadways Karamchari Sanyukt Parishad sent a representation to the principal secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, on 1 January 2008. The major issues raised in the representation were that

The denationalization scheme would result in closure of the corporation and the future of its 30,000 employees would become uncertain.

On 17 January 2008, an article was published in the daily newspaper The Times of India captioned ‘UPSRTC privatisation: Myths and realities’. The article read that the employees had deferred their agitation in view of the assurance given by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

Trade Union Movements

On 5 February 2008, a meeting was held at the cabinet secretary level of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In this meeting, the chief secretary, principal secretary (transport), police officials, principal secretary (home) and other senior officials of the government were present. The joint forum raised the issue that if the policies of the government were not deferred then the unions would continue with their agitation. The government was unrelenting on the issue and a deadlock occurred. Preetam Das, of Roadways Karamchari Sanyukt Parishad along with the general secretary of the officers’ association, said that if the government gave an assurance that the services of the employees and the officers of the corporation would not be endangered and that they would be protected, the government could proceed with the policies keeping the interest of the corporation in mind. An agreement was signed and the cabinet secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, gave a written assurance that the service conditions of the employees and officers of the corporation would not be adversely affected. Further in the letter of assurance, the government formed a committee regarding the problems of the employees of the corporation under the chairman of UPSRTC and instructed that the concerned official would conduct meetings with the employee unions regarding their problems and send suggestions to the government.

On the 11 February 2008, a meeting was held by the chairman, UPSRTC. In the meeting, the joint forum raised the issues that already 86 per cent routes were privatized and only 14 per cent routes were nationalized and hence any denationalization move should be stopped immediately since it would be detrimental to the corporation. The joint forum sounded their opinion that if the private operators ply along with UPSRTC buses, the load factor of the buses would reduce adversely affecting the revenues of the corporation. Second, if the control of bus stations which were mostly located on the nationalized routes would be given under the control of the private builders, it would encourage private operation from these bus stations. Thus, the privatization of the bus station scheme should be scrapped immediately. The corporation renovated its bus stations from its own resources and did not require any private participation for development of the bus stations. Various issues related to the service conditions of the employees were raised in the meeting and it was reiterated by the joint forum representatives that the scheme of denationalization of routes and privatization of bus stations of UPSRTC should be scrapped as early as possible. The representatives of the joint forum referred to the meeting held with the minister of transport in 2007 and further requested that no action should be taken in pursuance of the decision taken by the meeting of the board of the corporation regarding the privatization of the bus stations. The chairman, UPSRTC, who presided the meeting assured the employees that their issues would be brought to the notice of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and another meeting would be convened soon regarding the redressal of the grievances of the employees.

The government remained firm in its decision and was not ready to modify, amend or change as suggested by the joint forum; it was evident by the apathetic attitude of the government towards the problem that the state government would not take any interest in the matter and the joint forum was left with no other alternative than to approach the court.

The joint forum deliberated on the issue at length and finally after consulting senior lawyers of the High Court decided that the matter should be challenged before the court. The only concern was the fact that the matter was relating to policies of the government, whether the High Court would interfere in the matter and grant relief or not.

The representatives of the unions consulted with Mr S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate, High Court, and expressed their concern. They emphasized that if the High Court did not grant them relief, then the consequential effects of implementation of the policy being pursued by the government would be catastrophic to the corporation. Addressing the anxiety of the representatives of the unions and the complexity of the issue, the learned advocate apprised them that the bench was presided by Mr Justice Pradeep Kant, known for his impartiality, knowledge and justice. The joint forum decided to challenge the matter relating to denationalization of routes before the High Court.

Court Decision

The matter was vehemently argued before the honourable court and the court was pleased to issue an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 19 March 2008. Thereafter, a couple of hearings took place and finally the stay order was confirmed on 14 July 2008.

Glossary Used in This Article

The System of Public–Private Partnership

The corporation was constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950. This is a special act which was promulgated in 1950 to enable more easements in functioning of the government road transport department. In the case of government departments, all assents, permissions, sanctions and clarifications are given by the government. This negatively affects the system as the decisions are delayed. In order to provide more independence in decision-making, and enable a department to take the decision faster, the above-mentioned act was promulgated by the parliament, and all the state road transport department’s which were earlier under the government directly were converted into corporations. Though the act provides autonomy in decision-making, the policy decisions cannot be taken by the corporation independently. The corporation has to seek the permission of the government in taking policy decisions.

In the recent past, the Government of Uttar Pradesh introduced the systems under the PPP schemes. The USP of these schemes was that the government was not required to invest directly; a private partner was identified through the proper process (tendering process). The basic reason which triggered the PPP system was that the government was not required to invest in the development of the infrastructure-oriented projects. The full investment was done by the private partner and in return of the same the private partner was in some form or the other, as agreed, allowed to take back returns for a stipulated period. The ownership was not divested by the government. The two popular systems were build–own and transfer and the other was build–own–operate and transfer will stop.

The first step in this process is identification of the area where the private partnership is required. As in the case of UPSRTC, the government identified various bus stations and depots for development through the PPP scheme. As indicated, 274 bus stations owned by UPSRTC were identified under this scheme. Since the bus stations were purchased long time back, for the purposes of tendering, the government required the present valuation of these bus stations. The valuation of land or building is done by the district magistrate. For the valuation of any land or building, there is a settled system which is followed. The matter is referred to the district magistrate, who assigns the job to his subordinates and they evaluate the value of the land and the building as per the prevailing circle rates for the purpose of the land and rates of public works department as in the case of constructed area. The depreciation is recorded in case of constructed area. It is clarified that the circle rates are announced by the district magistrate who is empowered to do so under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950.

Chapter 6 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 deals with special provisions relating to state transport undertakings. Under the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, the route is nationalized and hence only UPSRTC buses could ply on the said routes in complete exclusivity to the private operators. Consequent to the same, the operation of private buses is prohibited on such routes, that is, nationalized routes.

The Issues

The labour legislation and connected machinery to resolve labour disputes is well rooted in India since British days. To a great extent, many of the provisions have become archaic and require a revision with changing economic environment. The lengthy imbroglio in collective bargaining in one of the largest state transport corporation in India has raised several issues in proper understanding of the provisions, the legal stakes and their impact: What constitute major issues that lead to resistance by employees and their unions in implementing the PPP model? What is the role of different social partners—government, management and the trade unions—in establishing peace and harmony? Why do dialogues fail? How should trade unions protect the interest of the employees? How should the government intervene to help both the parties at dispute?