6 of 10 widows refused jobs offered by Oreva, 4 survivors suffered ‘mental injury’, state tells HC

The submission came after the High Court in December had urged the state to provide the necessary support to victims of the Morbi bridge collapse, not only for their physical injuries but also for those who are in mental trauma.

In the hearing in December, the High Court had also made it clear that a one-time compensation by Oreva was not enough for the survivors. The court had directed to offer jobs to affected women. If the women are unwilling to work due to their circumstances, then the firm should pay a monthly stipend for their sustenance, the court had further said.

On Tuesday, the bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee heard a suo motu public interest litigation linked to the bridge collapse tragedy that had killed 135.

The state, represented by Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, also informed the bench that the state machinery took stock of the 10 women who were widowed due to the incident. While four of them agreed to accept Oreva’s job offer, six widows denied the firm’s offer due to various reasons, the Advocate General told the court.

Of the six who denied job offers, according to the Advocate General, one widow said that she was already working as a conductor with the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC). Another said she needed a sewing machine instead of a job. One of the women said she is 60 and belongs to a financially stable family and is thus not interested in a job with Oreva. Two other widows’ families are not permitting them to take up jobs and another widow has a small baby, Advocate General Trivedi further submitted.

The Advocate General further went on to inform the court that the widows are ready to accept sewing machines and monthly compensation from the company.

At the December hearing, Chief Justice Agarwal, while addressing Oreva Group, had said, “Compensation is not enough. Job means recurring income… you have to support them throughout their life, that is the aim of the court. You have completely upturned their life.”

Further adding that in case any of the affected women refuse the company’s job offer, the firm would then have to ensure that they are paid a monthly stipend, Chief Justice Agarwal had told the firm, “They may not be ready to work or be in a position to work. Suppose they are women who never worked or they never went out of their home. How can you expect them to one day come out of their home and go to work somewhere? For years together you ask them to stay home and one day when their husbands are not there you tell them to go out and work…They might not have the education, courage, or stamina to go out and work…One-time compensation is not going to give them that support that they otherwise needed.”

Advocate General Trivedi also submitted that of the 56 injured, it has now been determined that three of them now have a disability of more than 40 per cent.
The court has now kept the matter for further consideration on February 26.