Another case from Visitor Hostel

• 18th-Dec-2012, Malaise of Arbirary firing and baithki at IITK campus

  • ( A letter from Citizens' Forum to Director, IITK regarding the abusive use of arbitrary firing and forced temporary suspensions. )

  • May 2012. An email circulated by Hamara Manch in May 2012. A more detailed analysis of the case forms second half of this report.

On July 28, 2011, two employees of VH, Mr AS and Ms AK were dismissed from their services on a charge of misappropriation of an amount of Rs 1875/-.  Mr AS was one of the 16 workers who were reinstated in May 2010 after being dismissed in March 2010. The workers approached Hamara Manch and HM conducted a detailed investigation into the case. Here is a brief account of the case and the full report is attached as a pdf.  Our report was ready six months back but we did not release as the two concerned were hopeful that the institute authorities will look into their grievances and wanted us to wait.

The Incident

• • On 28th April at around 5 a.m. Mr G., a guest in VH, came to the VH reception to check out. Mr AS was on duty at the reception at that time.

  • Mr G.'s room was booked by Mr M. (an employee of the Institute Works Department, IIT Kanpur who has since retired) and the requisition form clearly stated that the bill was to be settled by the indenter.

  • The bill was for Rs 1875/- and Mr G. was asked to verify the amount and sign the bill. He was also informed that the bill would be paid by the indenter as per instructions.

  • According to Mr AS the guest left after signing the bill, and in keeping with the laid out procedure, in due course the bill was sent to Mr M. for settlement.

  • At that time Mr M. claimed that the bill had already been settled by his guest. According to him, Mr G. had paid Rs 1875/- towards the bill in cash to Mr AS and Rs 25/- was given to the attendant as tips.

  • When Mr M. was asked to produce the bill and receipt to prove his claim he said that his guest left in a hurry and hence did not take the receipt or the bill.

  • After some days Mr M. produced a faxed copy of the bill which he claimed his guest had sent to him. But the copy of the bill seems to be a photocopy of the one sent to Mr M. as it had the same peon book number.

The Aftermath

• • Since the incident and the subsequent verbal complaint by Mr M., Mr AS and the attendant on duty were asked to give written and verbal explanations for their action on that day. Both Mr AS and the attendant have maintained that they received no payment from the guest. Further the fact that there was no receipt seems to indicate that Mr AS and the attendant were telling the truth.

  • Several months elapsed, during which Mr AS continued to perform his duty at the reception desk. According to Mr AS he himself would have handled over 1000 guests in his three years of service in the VH. And his record has been impeccable barring this solitary case.

  • Probably in January Mr M. (the complainant) filed a written complaint to the Deputy Director, in which he specifically mentioned Mrs V. (the catering manager) and Mr A. (Asst. Caretaker), both employees of the Institute, as responsible for this misappropriation.

  • A one-member enquiry committee was instituted consisting of the labour advisor. This enquiry committee, as part of its investigation, interrogated several front desk employees of VH, among other people.

  • When interrogated, Mr AS and the attendant repeated what they had already stated several times earlier both in writing and verbally. Mr AS said that his statement was minuted and he signed it. But when he asked for a copy of his statement, it was refused.

  • On 28th July, 2011 Mr AS received a letter from M/s N. Kumar Associates, the contractor of VH, stating that ‘As per direction received from the of competitive (sic) authority Visitors’ Hostel, IIT Kanpur the management has decided to transfer you to outside (sic) IIT Kanpur from 1st August, 2011’.

  • Ms AK, another employee at the front desk of VH, also received a similar letter from the contractor. Ms AK was not even there on duty at the time, so she was completely bewildered to receive the termination letter.

  • On receiving termination letters Mr AS and Ms AK approached several authorities both in M/s N Kumar Associate International as well as the Institute to seek the reason for their ‘dismissal’ (transferring outside IIT Kanpur without any specified destination is simply a form of dismissal). Interestingly the Institute authorities claimed that it was the contractor who had dismissed them while the contractor’s officials were categorical that they had nothing to do in the whole issue – from the inquiry right to the punishment was all done by the Institute or on their behest.

  • When Mr AS contacted the Bombay Head Quarters of the contractor to seek clarification regarding his transfer ‘outside IIT Kanpur’, he was informed that M/s N Kumar & Associates have nothing to do with the case, that they were instructed to issue a letter to them (Mr AS and Ms AK) which was worded by the Institute, so if any clarification has to be sought it has to be from the Institute. And further if the Institute now instructs them to issue another letter for their reinstatement, M/s N. Kumar would do so.

  • Both Mr. AS and Ms. AK repeatedly asked Institute authorities for a copy of the report of the ‘preliminary fact-finding inquiry committee’ on the basis of which they were dismissed, but they were denied the request.

  • Faculty Forum Executive Committee, which was informed about this case, also sought a copy of the report from the concerned authorities, but they too were denied their request.

Hamara Manch Observations

• • All the available evidence suggests that Mr AS did his duty as per norm and did not receive any payment for the bill.  Moreover, Ms. AK was not even present at the time of the incident and appears to have been penalised simply for supporting Mr. AS in her interviews with the Institute officials.

  • The action against both workers was initiated and executed entirely on the behest of IIT Kanpur and the role of the contractor was merely to sign the letter(s) as directed by the Institute officials.

We demand that:

• • The 15th June Circular, giving contractors the right to hire and fire workers arbitrarily at their discretion, be revoked with immediate effect.

  • A written code of conduct be laid out for contract workers to avoid meting out of arbitrary punishments.

  • No contract worker be penalised without a due process. And in this context, we demand that the proceedings of the enquiry committee on the basis of which Mr. AS and Ms. AK have been penalised be immediately made public

  • Errant contractors/authorities be brought to task

We will Educate Ourselves, We will Organise and We will Agitate

Hamara Manch

(Note: edited to remove some names.)