Re: A Small Victory on Workers' Front at IITK

An email circulated to the alumni and Citizen's Forum from DRPG in response to this mail. See our response here.

Dated: 2011-08-05

Dear Ashok,

I must admit that your mail came as a bit of surprise to me -- I did not expect our representatives to argue for the contractor. But before arriving at any conclusions, I did an investigation of what happened during the meeting on 25th. I talked to the IITK representatives, as well as Mr Rakesh Kumar, the Addl Labor Commissioner. Here is what I learned:

The meeting was called by the Additional Labor Commissioner, Mr Rakesh Kumar, to arbitrate on the compensation claim of Ms Rinki. His office had already asked the contractor to deposit about Rs 4.6 lakhs as compensation which was already done by the contractor (the contractor deposited Rs 1.6 lakhs as Rs 3 lakhs was already paid to her). This compensation amount was contested by Ms Rinki, and the Commissioner called representatives of Ms Rinki, the institute, and the contractor to decide on it. Ms Rinki was represented by Mr Vishnu Shukla (a union leader of Kanpur city), the institute by Mr V P Gupta (retired Asst Labor Commissioner) and Mr R K Verma (executive engineer, IWD). There was also a representative of the contractor. Mr Shukla pointed out to the commissioner that due to a recent order (about a year old) of the government, the calculation of compensation needs to be done differently and results in an additional compensation amount of Rs 2.3 lakhs. The contractor's representative contested it. Mr Kumar then asked Mr Gupta of his opinion (Mr Gupta is a very well-respected retired Asst Labor Commissioner hired by the institute to advice on these matters). Mr Gupta said that the claim of Ms Rinki is correct and the contractor needs to pay additional compensation. The contractor's representative was still not convinced, and asked for 15 days time to formulate his response. This was granted by Mr Kumar and he fixed August 8 as the date for next hearing.

I am afraid your account of the meeting is incorrect. Specifically:

i) IITK representatives NEVER opposed the claims of Ms Rinki. In fact, they did not volunteer any opinion, and when asked supported Ms Rinki's claim.

ii) No final decision has been made yet by the Labor Commissioner. It will be done after August 8th meeting.

I suspect you got your information from Mr Shukla as he was representing Ms Rinki. I also suspect that Mr Shukla is trying to discredit the institute -- It will fit well with his thought process (in case you do not know it, Mr Shukla has made a career of being a union leader, and has a pathological dislike for all administrators). In fact, when I told Mr Kumar that it looks like Mr Shukla is telling everyone that IITK representatives opposed Ms Rinki's claim, he started laughing and commented: "I am not surprised knowing what kind of person he is".

Ashok, I have requested you before, and I do it again: please verify the facts before reporting them. Such misreporting brings no credit to you or your cause.

Best,

Manindra

( It is particularly perturbing to note that in the last couple of paragraphs, institute chose to personally vilify individuals associated with the cause. It also happens to be the case that our facts were all right unlike what the institute would like to believe, as explained in a much more detailed report here. )