Re: A Small Victory on Workers' Front at IITK

An email circulated to DRPG from the Citizen's Forum, also circulated to alumni, in response to this mail.

Dated: 2011-09-13

Dear Dr. Agarwal,

On July 31, 2011, a letter signed by us was sent to various alumni groups and IITK administrators, including you, regarding the role played by Hamara Manch and the alumni in ensuring that full legal compensation is paid to the dependents of a deceased contract worker.  On August 5, 2011, you sent a reply mail addressing it to one of the signatories and told him that he had got his facts wrong.

We felt that we needed to verify the facts for ourselves as till then we had based our letter on whatever we could gather from third party sources. On behalf of the signatories of July 31 letter, Shamim Akhter (2007 Batch alumnus) visited Kanpur and met those who had direct knowledge of the case: Mr. Vishnu Shukla (who represented Mrs. Rinki, wife of deceased contract worker), Mr. Rakesh Mishra (Additional Labour Commissioner), and Mr. V. P. Gupta (retired Additional Labour Commissioner, who at present acts as a Labour Advisor to IITK). He also had a telephonic conversation with Mrs. Rinki. The findings from his meetings and conversation are provided in the attached report along with the transcripts of the meetings and conversations.

You will find out from the attached Fact  Finding Report, that our earlier assertions are true. The institute representative and the representative of the Contractor had opposed the claim raised by Rinki’s lawyer, Mr. Vishnu Shukla. Neither the Institute nor the Contractor was aware of the amount of compensation due. Mr. V. P. Gupta actually did not even know of the amendment and had never cross checked the compensation amount. The Institute as of the date of drafting the report has done nothing to pressurize the Contractor to settle the compensation in an expedited manner, even after the agreed deadline of August 8, 2011 was long past.

The labour advisor of the Institute is not even remotely informed about the kind of safety policies that the institute has in place or if any safety training has been imparted to the workforce. As mentioned above, he was also totally ignorant of a vital amendment to a relevant act that was passed a year earlier. In the view of this gross ignorance we find your assertion that he is “a very well-respected retired Asst. Labor Commissioner” not very credible. We also find it very hard to believe that hiring him is going to serve the Institute in any manner. We are also puzzled with the fact that IITK and its labour advisor has taken no action to ensure that full legal compensation is paid to the dependents of Mr. Rohit who died on May 18, 2011. Since IITK’s labor advisor is not even aware of Rohit’s case, we believe IITK remains liable should contractor fail to compensate the death of Mr. Rohit.

Further, your claim that the contractor deposited Rs. 1.6 Lakhs for Smt. Rinki is wrong. The contractor on July 25, 2011, had deposited Rs. 1,30,560 Lakhs (your claim differs from the actual amount by 22.5% which is not negligible by any standards). This figure has been personally verified from the ALC’s office and the ALC himself.

We believe that the Institute has to be very careful to ensure it does not accrue undue liabilities due to the negligence of the Contractors, hire competent people to advise them properly, encourage community participation to ensure that rights of workers are not violated in the campus and the Institute should be vigilant towards its responsibilities towards the contract workers. We would reiterate that community participation is a simple measure that can go a long way in ensuring that the Institute’s duties and responsibilities towards the workers are not violated and the rights  of the workers respected and they are paid their due wages and compensation. True, representative and sustainable community participation will only become possible when along with students, faculty members and staffs of the Institute the voices of the workers are given an equal weightage. We believe, that the Institute will take this opportunity to improve its functioning and ensure that  every person connected to the Institute, temporarily or on a permanent basis is treated equally, at least when it is a question of their basic rights and dignity.

Please feel free to get back to us in case you require any further clarifications.

We would request you to kindly circulate this mail to the same set of email ids you had sent as we believe that your mail had accused Ashok Gupta wrongly and inappropriately.

With regards,

Amit Singh (IITK/2005)
Ashok Gupta (IITK/1972)
Raj Sahai (IITK/1966)
Shamim Akhter (IITK/2007)
Sushil Handa (IITK/1966)
Vaibhav Vaish (IITK/2004)
Grishma Udani (IITK/2005)

Attachment: Fact Finding Report Sept 11.pdf