Wages elude Matulya workers

The oral directions were given in the matter following the defence of the counsel for the mill, Jamshed Cama, who claimed that the mill has no money at present. He added that around Rs 1.4 crore pending from the developers is not forthcoming since the state is not giving them the relevant sanctions to construct a structure on the surplus land of the mill premises.

Asked why the state was refusing them sanctions, state government pleader R V Govilkar said that the state8217;s refusal was not mentioned in the affidavit filed by thecompany and that Cama was using the state to divert the attention of the court. However, the division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N Srikrishna demanded that the state explain its stand on the refusal of permissions. Govilkar stated that he needed time since the petition had been received by them only on June 11. He said that he has called for further information. 8220;Does this mean that the workers should die till the officers get time for deposition?8221; retorted Justice Srikrishna.

Earlier, during the 45-minute long argument Govilkar pointed out to the court that the refusal if any of the state was only to the second structure to be constructed by the mill. Matulya Mills, a private composite textile is under a reconstruction package drawn out by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction BIFR which includes sale of surplus land of the mill. The state had earlier sanctioned the sale of the mill land and the mill has already constructed a 20-storey residential structure.

Advocatefor the workers Colin Gonsalves argued that even after the mill land was sold off and buildings had come up the workers were not paid. 8220;You tell the workers to come to the mill, sign the muster and go away. Workers do not have money to eat, and yet they spend money buying bus and train tickets to reach the mill,8221; he said.

Justice Srikrishna then enquired about the money that was received by the mill. Giving the break up of the monies spent Cama answered that the workers were paid till August 1998 and that the current wages were not a part of the earlier scheme. 8220;I am anxious to pay their salaries,8221; he said speaking for his clients, to which Justice Srikrishna remarked, 8220;Please convert your anxiety to currency notes8221;.

The present scheme on the construction of the second building envisages the developer pay the mill, according to the slab wise work completed on the structure. With no sanction from the state, no money was forthcoming for the mill. Justice Srikrishna then wanted to know about thescheme. 8220;If the files say that the sanctions are refused because the earlier scheme had not be adhered to, we will accept it,8221; he told the government pleader. He also remarked that if any money were to come from the developers to the mill owners, he would order that the money be deposited with the court and the workers paid their wages.

The IDBI being the monitoring agency in such BIFR cases, Justice Srikrishna asked Gonsalves to send notices to them on behalf of the court asking for their presence in the court.