Thursday, April 03, 2014

Aide mémoire of the Citizens’ Forum representatives meeting with Director IITK on 6th March 2013 in Director’s Chamber (FN) and VH (AN).

Citizens’ Forum represented by:
Ashok Gupta, Ohio
Sushil Handa, Montreal
Vaibhav Vaish, Chennai
VN Sharma , Ranchi
Praval Singh, Varanasi (Afternoon session)

IITK represented by:
Prof. I. Manna (Director),
Prof. Manindra Agarwal (DOFA),
Prof. P. Munshi (DRPG) for first one hour
Prof. Sudhir Mishra,Prof.-in-charge, Civil works
Mr. Rajiv Garg, SE, IWD 
Mr. C.P.Singh, Dy Registrar (Law)

(CF expected to give a presentation to the Director which was meticulously worked out and also had informed his office about it. However, unfortunately a projector/room could not be made available and the meeting had to proceed without the same.)

Proceedings:

The meeting began at around 11:00 am, with the opening remarks by Sushil Handa who, on behalf of Citizens’ Forum, elaborately stressed that the only reason that alumni are involved in raising issues of workers are that they genuinely see the institute as their own, and as individuals who feel strongly for human rights and dignity of labour and they want to be proud of their institute and want it to uphold those values. As individuals we come from diverse backgrounds and reasoning, but we have no hidden agenda and the only reason for us to be involved is to see the institute truly progress. We do not believe in the sab kuch theek hai mentality of the Indian bureaucracy which systematically misinforms the superiors, thus side-lining genuine issues, and we  believe that criticism is good in a healthy democracy and that it is not the same as bad mouthing. We hope that by setting in processes and correcting the wrongs in this regard, academic members can truly focus on research without distractions. He thanked the Director for providing this opening of communications.

Ashok carried on and explained that we have no political ambitions or affiliations and it is this institute where they learned to open their minds and not merely be bookworms. While we have been accused of having “second hand information”, who really in the room has first-hand information -- we talk to students, faculty, and workers and really there is nothing to hide from our side. In fact, in many ways our criticisms are more accurate, because we do not need to change our discourse to butter up for jobs or promotions.

Then, carrying on the theme of the presentation in its absence, he went on to explain the genesis of Citizens’ Forum and alumni involvement -- the first few deaths in 2007 shook the alumni, but after the office order in September that year, we thought that the institute has taken corrective measures. However by 2009 we understood that the problem is much more deeply entrenched and has gone nowhere -- this is what gave rise to an online petition. We wrote to the then Director when we got hundred fifty, then five hundred, then thousand, then fifteen hundred signatures --  of the people who signed, 95% also pledged not to donate -- however we received no response. But we have kept raising issues as a collective, and have also learnt not to trust blindly the information passed on to us. For example under RTIs institute says that there are no migrant workers in the campus, but Ram Sharan ji who recently died, and his whole team of about fourty is now established to have come from Bihar. Similar is the case of EPF, the EPF account number provided for a workers case is found to be invalid.

In fact, Ashok explained, that there are four issues of priority -- Minimum Wages, EPF, ESI, and safety. While all of these are non-negotiable in law, it also is our moral responsibility and not merely legal to see them being met. Vaibhav pointed out that according to the law, minimum wage is bare minimum, meant for ‘subsistence’ and ‘preserving efficiency of workers’ not for a dignified life style. It is therefore just not acceptable that they be paid lower than the same. At this point Prof. Manna interjected and asked who ensures the wages. After all, the institute is not in business of social welfare. Vaibhav replied that it is not merely a question of ensuring, but in the past the institute has been actively stonewalling efforts of the volunteers and community attempting to ensure the same.

Prof. Manna suggested we move forward and leave the past, and CF representatives agreed. Sushil explained that coming to the present there are legal responsibilities institute cannot shy away from. He explained that what we need is a proper system in place, and the likes of it is already functional in SAIL, EIL. For example, we need to have a single ID card not ad-hoc tokens as in the present practice. And while the institute alone should grant these ID cards, it is the responsibility of the contractors to provide with up to date information. It is certainly a do-able system -- after all both SAIL and EIL implement this.

Prof. Manna said he was completely on board viz-a-viz the ID card issue, and will certainly like to do the same. Institute does need to have an information on who are working and what wages are paid to them, status of their EPF and ESI, and also the ID cards provided. He asked CP Singh and Rajiv Garg if there is any difficulty and they said there is no difficulty in doing the same.

Prof. Manna asked how we would maintain the list periodically, to which Sushil Handa suggested that periodically should mean every time the wages are paid. CP Singh claimed that there is monthly payment and that they have complete records of the workers with photographs. Prof. Manindra claimed that in fact we already are doing all this and perhaps it is just a gap of perception. At this point Ashok brought in the case of mess workers, and Vaibhav the case of Ramsaran, in both the recent cases it was found that the institute records were severely lacking. CP Singh claimed that there was no record of Ramsaran because he hadn’t being paid then for he was employed just that month. However he offered no explanation as to the mistakes in his hometown (and consequent false RTI response of no migrant workers).

VN Sharma then explained that he had a great experience at SAIL (where he was employed) regarding these issues and is surprised that these are so badly maintained here. IIT Kanpur has the role of principal employer and needs to be geared up to take it on. Prof. Manna said that while they are committed to law, they cannot compete with SAIL in this regards which has a whole HR department to address these issues. At this point VN Sharma clarified that all the Labour related laws are applicable with the same weightage on both the Public and Private sector Companies, IITs and individuals. They are not different for different principal employer or the Contractors. So what is required, like HRD or some other to perform the job, has to be created.

Ashok said that one can understand this, and therefore one needs to evolve mechanisms for community monitoring, for example by putting such details on the website. Prof. Manna said that we can only collect such information periodically and for legal reasons it may not be desirable to put the information on a public website. VN Sharma said that brand IIT has given him a lot, and they certainly do not want to put it in legal trouble but one has to comply with the legal and human requirements and not allow oneself to be cheated, as possibly in the Ram Saran’s case. Prof. Manna said that possibly the worker was on wrong and gave the wrong declaration of hometown, but equally possibly contractor had cheated.

At this point Sushil Handa said that because of in-congruencies one cannot be sure and the objective is to evolve such mechanisms that these contradictions may be avoided. Even leaving aside construction, one notes that the contractor does not announce all its workers in other contracts (say in mess), and in fact by charging the institute for EPF/ESI and not paying to the worker, it is in fact cheating the institute as well. He also mentioned that failure to pay minimum wage, contribute to EPF & ESI is a criminal offence.

Prof. Manna agreed and said that on top of that, if knowing this we side with the contractor we are in fact an accomplice. We will like to have no dues from our side, and if brought to notice will work for giving legal notice to the contractor. Sushil Handa agreed and said that these issues will be resolved if there is complete documentation and community participation, for example HEC, is allowed to monitor the same.

Prof. Manna said that the institute is willing to maintain the documentation, but cannot make it public. At the same time institute is revisiting the website and will add a page on IWD with basic information on projects, their values, contractor names, tenure, and job details. Also institute wants to make sure that EPF is provided and relevant accounts are opened in Kanpur. CP Singh added that one will like to investigate and pin the efforts here. Prof. Manna added that the onus indeed lies on the institute and we need to verify.

VN Sharma pointed out that there has been a laxity in EPF follow ups as RTI responses with respect to M/s Aahar Vihaar accounts in Ahmedabad and Kanpur reveal and for this reason one needs to have EPF account in Kanpur only.  Case of Aahar Vihhar who did not pay EPF for about eight years and is now gone missing, was briefly discussed. Prof. Manna explained that while this should be the default, it may not be desirable in all cases and exceptions should be allowed, for example when workers themselves are coming from outside and have another account. To this exception VN Sharma agreed. Ashok showed Prof. Manna the documents related to Vihar Aahar, which Prof. Manna asked to keep.

At this point Sushil Handa added that just as here we need to understand the question of social responsibility -- we should be willing to take steps even if not legally required but in the spirit of law. For example institute should ask for regular reporting and documentation from the contractors. The tendency to handover all responsibility to the contractor and not bother with the social plight we create should not be acceptable. Even if the institute has no criminal responsibility, it can eliminate annoying incidences within the campus and it is good for the peace of the system. Prof. Manna said that he would talk and stress the same to the construction companies.

At this point the discussion digressed into academic issues beginning with the comment of Prof. Manna that it is the institute’s primary responsibility. To this VNS replied that he expected IITK to have a few Nobel prizes by now but it did not happen in last 50 years. And now even there, the standards are falling, academics is on a downward slope.  Prof. Manna explained that while they aren’t up to the expectations, there are good contributions from the institute faculty. He further agreed that there exists a very bad scenario with some faculty being without PhD students or publications for years.

Sudhir Mishra brought up that many contracts are with COW and not IWD, but in any case the basic responsibility is of the contractor. Prof. Manna added that there are two sides to every coin, and CP Singh pointed out that they had sent Mr. Gupta (institute’s legal advisor on legal issues) to the EPF office for verification and he found no anomalies. Prof. Manna said that we will need to write to the EPF office in this context, but may be it is just that they haven’t updated the records. Sushil Handa said that if they haven’t only updated the records, it would be fine, but it is difficult to say so on the basis of information available. Prof. Manna pointed out the implementation is always an issue, after all even many nationalised banks have no signature verification. VN Sharma pointed out that simple monitoring and control is often enough and elaborated on the EPF case further.

Vaibhav pointed out that it is here community participation is the key, and the institute can very well utilize the fact that so many from community are concerned. Prof. Manna said that there is no dearth of issues, but regarding community participation we have so many groups -- what if one group says it does not have faith in other group.

Sushil Handa agreed that balance is needed but we must welcome participation and appropriate mechanisms need to be evolved. One idea may be local tripartite committees e.g. in case of hostel it may comprise of Student rep, Worker rep and contractor rep. Prof. Manna said that he is indeed keen to create such a group, but we must appreciate that he is new and with lot of responsibilities, so exact modalities will take time to evolve. Sushil Handa agreed and said, that we are here to co-operate and raise our concerns. Ashok pointed out that we have met students, and was charged up to see them motivated to take up the cause but disappointed at them being denied their legitimate speaking space. Prof. Manna said that there is always HEC to bring up such issues, but Vaibhav pointed out that the complaints of HEC are often not respected. Prof. Manna gave a particular example of a student involving in an issue, and how he advised him to come with his supervisor -- who told him to give full time to his thesis and that authorities will resolve the relevant issues.

Sushil Handa pointed out that even in the formal curriculum a lot of classes we have are in Humanities, after all we want to create sensitive human beings not robots. He agreed that may be full time must not be spent on these activities, but the students certainly shouldn’t be discouraged.

Prof. Manna brought in other academic issues saying that better examinations and courses are needed to be focussed on. He said that if some student indeed wants to monitor or complaint he can channel these requests to COW or DOSA. He added that he wanted everyone including the Deans and the Directors to be accountable.

At this point Prof. Manna received a call and suggested that he will have to leave soon to cater to other responsibilities. Ashok thanked him for being there and for this opening of communication while Prof. Manna added that other people here also need to be thanked.

VN Sharma continued with the discussion, and pointed out how students and even their guides are censured and told not to involve in politics, and this happened even in the past. But his initiative was instrumental in getting SAIL to hire from IITs directly under campus recruitment policy (only to be stopped a year later by a Court order –Orissa High Court).

Sushil Handa brought in the issue of safety and pointed out that this has been stressed enough in mails and otherwise, and it is only because of this it hasn’t been brought up in the meeting so far.

Prof. Manna said that the problem was perhaps we are not getting good credible companies, and Prof. Manindra is trying to get help of alumnus in getting the same. In addition he is also trying to arrange for some companies for independent safety audits. Also the present Board of Governors is appointing a safety officer.

At this point Sushil Handa added that a better worker is good for institute, and if we pay them better and take care of their safety, they will stick to the institute and provide better services. Prof. Manna agreed and that he had no problem in paying them more. He added that we need to set the tone of things, and that this applies to all workers including those outside IWD, for example in the mess. He recalled that one day whole IWD came in agitated suggesting that he does not have faith in them, and he pointed out that he has faith in them and was merely trying to protect them. He also added that spending money by GOI norms is difficult and added that he himself went to ILO with MHRD officials to enquire about these issues, but hasn’t received a response. VN Sharma pointed out that workers need training and re-training for safety to be effective, and he observed the significant change of work culture when he went to SAIL. At this point discussion digressed about a common individual connected with SAIL both Prof. Manna and VN Sharma knew. After this brief digression, Prof. Manna left the meeting hall.

A somewhat informal discussion continued for some more time in his absence.

Prof. Manindra said that institute can do whatever possible, but handling grievances is not possible as there are no provisions in law for them, and that they can go in courts. Sushil Handa said that there have to be mechanisms of grievance redressal, and institute is already playing a role by the claims of contractors and workers. Prof. Manindra agreed and said that it is because we come under pressure. CP Singh brought in a case of some individual worker, who he claimed was asked to be removed by the institute because he borrowed a lot of money. Prof. Manindra said that even such interference should not be made. Sushil Handa said that it needs to be done to maintain the peace.

At this point Vaibhav pointed out that we do several things outside the law to maintain a healthy culture -- for example Student Gymkhana or giving space to its events may not be a legal requirement. Sushil Handa added that we need to give a fair chance to everyone and once there is more peace, we all can get back to focus on only research. VN Sharma also pointed out that GOI does not want too many cases against the public funded organisations be it PSUs or IITs or any other institute, a fact he learnt from the experience of SAIL, and it is therefore useful to have internal redressal mechanisms.

But Prof. Manindra said we do not need to do anything beyond legal mechanism otherwise groupism will start. Sushil Handa pointed out that stake holders in a democracy should have space to participate and monitor, and this can form the basis of the redressal. Prof. Manindra partly agreed. CP Singh claimed that since there are now bank transactions for payments, there is no illegality. Sushil Handa said that it would be fine if institute maintained documentation and cross-checked that. CP Singh also claimed that there is MWMC, a body encompassing everyone, which addresses grievances. Sushil Handa pointed out that even when it finds the complaints valid, it does nothing, and it is the worker who gets fired. CP Singh immediately added that hire and fire is not in their domain. VN Sharma pointed out that hirings are taking place on recommendations of those including faculty as an act of mutual obligation between the faculty and the contractors, and it is for this reason that lots of workers come from faculty servant quarters within the campus. CP Singh agreed that there are lot of illegalities in place, but claimed that no workers came from servant quarters and asked Rajiv Garg (who was separately conversing with Ashok regarding EPF and other issues). Rajiv Garg, when back to discussion, said that indeed a good number of workers come from faculty servant quarters. At this Prof. Manindra said that it is natural to help those working for you and this is all right.

At this point Sushil Handa said that in the same spirit and in the spirit of law grievance redressal should be undertaken. He reiterated the idea of tripartite committee comprising of various stakeholders at this point. We may not be able to impose but certainly facilitate, and by doing so 90% of our problems will be solved. To this Prof. Manindra cautiously agreed.

Director Manna joined the alumni after lunch at VH cafeteria. He was then able to see our Power point presentation and once again alumni brought forward the issues of democratic governance, constructive criticism and dignity of workers and students particularly citing the case of an older worker with more than 10 years of service in various messes, who was arbitrarily fired after being bullied by the contractor to write an apology. The worker maintained that he had done nothing wrong and could not write a false apology. It was clear that his dignity was very important to him.


Director left the meeting with promise to do his best to address the issues raised by the alumni. He also assured that he would ask the Institute lawyer to write to EPFO Ahmedabad regarding Aahar Vihar cases and to settle this for the suffering workers. The discussion wrapped up around 1:30pm.


Note: Action points arising out of the meeting and forwarded to IITK can be seen in the URL