An Ominous Warning..

This is in refernce to the recent killings of 76 police men by so called naxalites..
Although in no way i favour violence, we, still need to ask ourseles as to why & what makes a naxalite or a terrorist out of a common man...
The write-up below was written long back to the editor of The Times Of India in reference to the the editorial titled " An Ominous Warning ", the link of which is given below for the reader's reference :

An Ominous Warning

Minister shouldn't peddle victimhood to justify murder.

Log on to : http://www.timesofindia.com/

The letter written by yours truly has no direct connotation with the Dantewada killings but surely has the potential to give us an insight as to what exactly goes through the mind of a common man who is facing a crisis in his life.
The elite class only gets to read about the crisis & has very little clue about the actual fallouts of the crisis. Media too, looks at the issue very superficially or as per their political or economical inclination.
Yours truly is going through such a crisis since February 2003 & hence there is no scope for any doubt on the authenticity of the feelings, atleast.
i have tried my level best to stay level headed on the issue instead of being partisan to one class.
i hope you conform & acknowledge..

Now, the write-up :

With reference to your editorial dated Sept.25, titled " An Ominous warning", i would like to share my views on the subject.



Alas! it takes a gruesome murder to get heard by the confederation of Indian industry & a union ministers comment for The Times Of India to take note of the sorry state of labour dispute resolution or malaise affecting employer-labour relations, as you aptly term it.
i am sure that CII in particular & TOI being an honorary member of CII by way of being a business house is & was totally aware of the grim situation. You must also be aware that what is " self evident" can also have a catastrophic effect. That you choose to term ' linkage' as 'specious' & still go on and link with existing regulations by lamenting about non-implementation of proposed amendments to ID Act of 1947, speaks on its own about your partisan and tilted attitude towards the employer.
It also gives an hint about the respect you have for democracy.


You advice labour class to adopt constitutional & legal ways to protest, conveniently forgetting, as to what actually happens to such polite & righteous methods when faced with an opponent who is not only strong & powerful but also cunning enough to practice autocratic, high handed & strangulating measures with complete ease & authority.
Hordes of cases filed against the employers ( including TOI) to fight against the extra-constitutional & sometimes blatantly un-constitutional measures still wait in depression & frustration to see the day of final judgement in our courts.
Assistant labour commissioner to labour commissioner to labour court to industrial court to high court to division bench to supreme court, the journey to seek redressal of a grievance is so long & arduous that it is extremely difficult to keep one's justice seeking spirits alive thereby making a complete mockery of the belief one so painfully endures in the SYSTEM, of which labour is a tiny & insignificant part.
Patience soon becomes a distant virtue. Frustration creeps in & violence which one so carefully & successfully avoided all these years, slowly starts to raise its ugly head & seems like one's best friend and saviour.
Saviour from the agonies that one goes through just because one is not rich enough to endure the struggle, just because time is slowly but surely running out.....


On the other hand, the employer gleefully takes advantage of the situation & professes to stick & follow "the due process".
Why...?
i am pretty sure its not because he is more righteous than the employee or a great believer in the current democratic system but because in this case ' THE SYSTEM ' is working to his advantage. In some other case the same employer is vehemently opposing the same system because in this case he might be the disadvantaged party.
For example, the monopolies restrictive trade union (MRTU) & prevention of unfair labour practices (PULP) Act 1971 is duly implemented in the state of Maharashtra. The act enables the labour to directly file the unfair labour practice complaint in front of the labour or industrial court, depending on the nature of complaint, thereby saving precious time & energy of the labour by avoiding rigorous trips to the office of the Assistant labour commissioner (ALC) and then to the office of the Labour commissioner. This act also helps in getting some interim relief so that the labour can survive till the case is finally disposed off.
Now, this does not suit the employer. So...what does he do?
He lobbies hard, in fact very hard, to get the MRTU & PULP Act scrapped off by threatening the Maharashtra Government that he & his cohorts will pull out all the industries from the state if an ordinance or bill which suits the industry is not passed in the state legislative assembly. Government in order to please the industry & to earn revenues tries so, but unfortunately meets with strong opposition from trade unions & from members within & outside the party.
The employer is relentless in his efforts to curb down the fighting spirit & approaches High court of Mumbai with a plea on the issue of territorial jurisdiction.
Inspired by Mr.Raj Thackere, he pleads that MRTU & PULP Act is only for Mumbaikars or for the people of Maharashtra & hence no outsider, even if his employer's office is registered in the state of Maharashtra, should take advantage of the MRTU & PULP Act by filing the complaint in the state of Maharashtra. Instead, the labour should file the case in his respective state even if his appointment letter is given in Mumbai, even if his salary and other sundry expenses are generated, furbished and disbursed from Mumbai. Interesting part is that the same set of employers not so long ago i.e. before the MRTU & PULP Act got actually implemented, used to raise the same issue of territorial jurisdiction when the employee used to file the case in his respective state, only this time to tell the court that the employee ought to file the case in Mumbai because that is where the employer & the cause of action is.


Hilarious...
you think..but no, this is nothing when you come to know that the double bench of High court of Mumbai on 12th of August 2008 is pleased to pass the order in favour of the employer in the case of GLAXO against ABHAY RAJ JAIN & others.
Its a strange coincidence that the same duo of judges pass one more order in the favour of employers of the aviation industry on 13th August 2008. Its even more strange to note that one of the senior judge of this duo namely Mr. Khandeparkar retires on 14th August 2008.
Now, again the employee has to control his rage & approach Supreme court of India. The fact that JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED, not withstanding. As a fallout of the Mumbai high court judgement in the Glaxo case, other workmen who have filed their cases in Mumbai labour court since years, ranging from 1 to 17 LONG YEARS, has to wait patiently for supreme courts decision on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, hoping that someone brave enough will challenge the Mumbai high courts decision. This, my dear editor, is the real ' limbo '.


All these for what...to curb down the fighting spirit...to allow capitalists to rule...to encourage greed in the mask of labour reforms...to murder humanity...


Well...it seems you & your industry wallahs are successful in generating an extreme response from the suppressed. Its all chain reaction ..you know. Pray that it remains sporadic lest you become a victim one day.

manish badkas