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
