HC rips BMC, workers apart, likens hold-up to Veerappan

The BMC administration was considering accepting the resolution moved in favour of the workers’ demands by the nearly 200 elected representatives on October 13. It stated that the workers must be given the additional ex-gratia over and above the Rs 2,500 that the BMC was willing to give this Diwali. Municipal Commissioner V. Ranganathan is not obliged to accept the resolution, but he held off the decision on it till the court gave an interim ruling today on a petition filed three years ago during a similar tug-of-war between the administration and workers, holding Mumbai to ransom.

The workers are demanding Rs 2,600 more than what the BMC was initially willing to part with. The additional ex-gratia will cost the once-rich but now cash-strapped corporation nearly Rs 70 crore. Union leader Sharad Rao, who spearheaded the two-day strike, is not in a mood to negotiate given the fact that the corporators preferred to ignore the public sentiment and voted on his side in the House last Friday.

But even Rao was rattled when the average Mumbaiite came on to the streets on Friday afternoon — after nearly two days of going without water and other services — and damaged property, sat on dharna on arterial roads and railway tracks, targeted BMC offices and most of all, ransacked Rao’s two union offices to vent their anger against the workers.

Today’s interim order comes against the backdrop of this queer situation where the people of Mumbai have made their mind clear but their elected representatives voted in favour of the striking workers. That resolution also stated that the workers’ salaries must not be cut for the days they went on strike and punitive action must not be taken. The division bench of Justice B.N. Srikrishna and Justice Ranjana Desai in their ad interim injunction today prevented “the BMC, the commissioner and state government from implementing any resolution in respect of payment of bonus and/or ex-gratia and payment of salary for the strike period to the municipal employees”.

The consumer organisation Mumbai Grahak Panchayat that intervened in the petition has pointed out that the Industrial Court had passed orders against the strike operative till October 19, 2000, yet the unions went ahead with it. When BMC counsel C.J. Sawant said it has filed contempt proceedings against the unions, Justice Srikrishna thundered: “That will be seen by that court. Now we will pass orders and let them dare flout it and hold the city to ransom. We will direct the commander-in-chief of the Army to come in and take over the municipal administration.”

Coming down strongly on the BMC and state government, the bench observed: “Prima facie we are of the view that payment of ex-gratia to the municipal employees is contrary to the provisions of Section 115 of the BMC Act. It is unfortunate that neither the BMC nor the state government noticed and acted upon the statutory provisions of Section 115 of the BMC Act or Section 520 B. We cannot throw up our hands when the city is being held to ransom. We will use our extraordinary jurisdiction and pass necessary orders.”

Counsel R.D. Soni, who appeared for petitioner D.M. Sukhtankar, said that in 1997, the court did not pass an order granting interim relief but gave them the liberty to mention the matter whenever the occasion arises. Counsel for the Mumbai Mazdoor Union and the Hindustan Karmachari Union, Jamshed Cama, was asked: “Do you want bonus? Do you want to share profits by way of bonus when the BMC is in the red? Why don’t you share the losses too? Why should the BMC pay you when employees are not entitled to under the law? Besides, there is no direction production.” Justice Srikrishna added sardonically: “Why only Rs 8,000, give them (the workers) Rs 1 lakh.”

Corporators justifying their act of voting against their public.

“The outcry in the city over water was very bad and as it was only getting worse. We thought it better to surrender and take charge of the situation, rather than delay.” — Yusuf Abrahani, Samajwadi Party Leader

“The situation was threatening to go out of control. The adminstration had failed 100 per cent and there seemed to be a possibility of civil war. Therefore, to avoid the situation, I had to take the initiative and take the decision on the spot.” — Digambar Kandarkar, Shiv Sena leader of the House

This is a fraud planned by the ruling party, along with the trade unions and with the support of bureaucrats to fool the public. Under the BMC Act, a significant issue of this magnitude can only by referred to a Standing Committee for opinion and no drastic decision can be taken of this sort. We tried to express this but the Mayor refused to allow us to speak. — Ravindra Pawar, NCP corporator