2009-11-04 : Update Hamara Manch [Finger Loss Case, IME Building Workers, Telephone Operators]

Update Hamara Manch (4/11/09)

Finger loss: Mr Anil Singh, the worker who had lost his finger had come. He had tried to give an application to the Supdt Engineer of IWD seeking his dues because of the accident, but the SE refused to accept the application. Further, the Institute has refused to give any assistance. Mr Singh’s legal dues include medical support, wages for the days not able to work and a monetary compensation for the loss of fingers. We have decided to work out a letter for these claims which would be then given to all responsible authorities. Besides the law the letter would also invoke the 16^th September office order which required insurance and medical assistance for all workers.

IME Building Back wages of migrant workers: The workers had come but were unable to meet the Minimum Wages (MWMC) chair. Meanwhile the MWMC chair informally informed one of us that the contractor was unable to give the workers their dues because the he had grossly underbid the contract and since the significant rise in wages in May 2009 he is running short of money. Of course it was pointed out to him that he was underpaying the workers even earlier than May 2009 – when the wages for unskilled workers were Rs 130 per day he was paying Rs 90/-. Further why should the daily wage migrant workers be penalized due to the fault of the contractor?

Telephone Operators: A new case has come to our notice regarding the exploitation of the operators of the telephone exchange. The Institute’s telephone exchange has been given on contract to HCL –for the last 8 years. The company has hired 8 operators to run them. The institute pays Rs 12,160/- per month per operator to HCL, but these operators are given only a fraction of this amount the lowest being Rs 3770/- per month. Which, incidentally is only about 2/3^rd of the minimum wages prescribed for unskilled daily wage workers (@ Rs 180*30 = Rs5400/-). Further funnily their appointment letter is issued by a third company – whose officials they have never met, they actually know nothing about that company. A letter providing information about these workers is attached. They have been circulating this letter personally to seek support for their case and it has already been endorsed by 32 faculty members and around 15 staff members.

Attachment: Telephoneexch.pdf