http://www.financialexpress.com/old/ie/daily/19990722/ige22050p.html
The interim order follows an exhaustive hearing by the division bench that took almost the entire day since Tuesday. The final order has been reserved for July 30.
The bench is hearing for final disposal a petition filed by the Kachra Vahatuk Shramik Sangh (KVSS) that is pleading that the BMC be directed to abolish contract services for debris removal and absorb the contract workers. The BMC has, however, already finalised new contractors for the work with the earlier contracts expiring in June.
Constituting the second wing of theBMC's waste management programme, these dumping ground workers are hired by contractors, who use their own vehicles and these workers to dispose of the city's garbage. While garbage is collected and disposed of by BMC workers, the debris of roads and buildings and gutter silt are collected by these contract workers. The KVSS however argues that the contract workers also collect and dispose of garbage.
Interwoven in the petition are pleas that these modern day `untouchables' were ill paid and ill kept, where gumboots, gloves and washing facilities are not provided in the dumping ground areas despite court orders.
In fact, as counsel for the union, Colin Gonsalves read out reports of the the various health camps that showed that these workers suffered from chronic bronchitis and other illnesses, Justice Srikrishna remarked that it is surprising that the workers had taken so long to form a union. (The BMC has employed the services of contract workers since 1970). Gonsalves admitted that it was a failure ofthe union movement.
It was also pointed out that the entire system of contract workers is illegal. For one, the BMC, the principal employer, does not have registration under the Contract Labour laws that could enable it to further give contracts to the workers. Second, none of the contractors who hire the workers have individual licences themselves. ``All these years, the workers never had any vouchers, never signed a muster, and never signed against any money paid to them,'' Gonsalves submitted.
He argued that this system suited the BMC since the contractors who were paid according to the trips their vehicles made could fudge the number of trips. ``In the end, it is the city which suffers,'' he stated. The counsel embellished his arguments by the surveys and reports submitted by the labour commissioner, which explicitly stated these lapses and which had advised the BMC to abolish the current practice in July 1998.
So when D H Mehta, special counsel for the BMC stood up to defend his client, JusticeSrikrishna asked him, ``Considering all the lapses, why must we not take the view that these are all sham contracts?''. Mehta argued that the BMC, though belatedly, did apply for a registration under the Contract labour Laws, in 1996. He then combed through the BMC Act and claimed that under the act, garbage removal was an obligatory duty, whereas these contract workers only collected and disposed off `debris', which, he insisted, was not equal to garbage or refuse and were used mainly for landfill. He argued that the high court had no jurisdiction into these ``camouflage contracts'', and it could only remand the matter to the labour commissioner to enquire into.
As far as directions for the abolition of the contract system was concerned, he argued that it was the state government alone that could give the civic body such a direction.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
HC holds out hope for 800 contract workers
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
MUMBAI, JULY 21: The Bombay High Court today gave around 800 garbage
disposal contract workers who have been idle since June 1999 hope for
survival. A division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N
Srikrishna in an interim relief directed that the Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation (BMC) ``consider the offer made by the workers that they
will be willing to work under direct supervision of the BMC officers for
cleaning the city, at a minimum wage of Rs 100 per day''.The interim order follows an exhaustive hearing by the division bench that took almost the entire day since Tuesday. The final order has been reserved for July 30.
The bench is hearing for final disposal a petition filed by the Kachra Vahatuk Shramik Sangh (KVSS) that is pleading that the BMC be directed to abolish contract services for debris removal and absorb the contract workers. The BMC has, however, already finalised new contractors for the work with the earlier contracts expiring in June.
Constituting the second wing of theBMC's waste management programme, these dumping ground workers are hired by contractors, who use their own vehicles and these workers to dispose of the city's garbage. While garbage is collected and disposed of by BMC workers, the debris of roads and buildings and gutter silt are collected by these contract workers. The KVSS however argues that the contract workers also collect and dispose of garbage.
Interwoven in the petition are pleas that these modern day `untouchables' were ill paid and ill kept, where gumboots, gloves and washing facilities are not provided in the dumping ground areas despite court orders.
In fact, as counsel for the union, Colin Gonsalves read out reports of the the various health camps that showed that these workers suffered from chronic bronchitis and other illnesses, Justice Srikrishna remarked that it is surprising that the workers had taken so long to form a union. (The BMC has employed the services of contract workers since 1970). Gonsalves admitted that it was a failure ofthe union movement.
It was also pointed out that the entire system of contract workers is illegal. For one, the BMC, the principal employer, does not have registration under the Contract Labour laws that could enable it to further give contracts to the workers. Second, none of the contractors who hire the workers have individual licences themselves. ``All these years, the workers never had any vouchers, never signed a muster, and never signed against any money paid to them,'' Gonsalves submitted.
He argued that this system suited the BMC since the contractors who were paid according to the trips their vehicles made could fudge the number of trips. ``In the end, it is the city which suffers,'' he stated. The counsel embellished his arguments by the surveys and reports submitted by the labour commissioner, which explicitly stated these lapses and which had advised the BMC to abolish the current practice in July 1998.
So when D H Mehta, special counsel for the BMC stood up to defend his client, JusticeSrikrishna asked him, ``Considering all the lapses, why must we not take the view that these are all sham contracts?''. Mehta argued that the BMC, though belatedly, did apply for a registration under the Contract labour Laws, in 1996. He then combed through the BMC Act and claimed that under the act, garbage removal was an obligatory duty, whereas these contract workers only collected and disposed off `debris', which, he insisted, was not equal to garbage or refuse and were used mainly for landfill. He argued that the high court had no jurisdiction into these ``camouflage contracts'', and it could only remand the matter to the labour commissioner to enquire into.
As far as directions for the abolition of the contract system was concerned, he argued that it was the state government alone that could give the civic body such a direction.
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
Comments
Post a Comment