Dolu: Why the “sacred” MoU is vague, less of a legal doc and more of a political script
Why are the labourers of Dolu protesting?
The entire defense of the government is built on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the labour unions and the State Government. Without engaging in any emotional appeal to those who are impenetrable to emotions anyways ,let’s talk facts. HARD FACTS!
Let’s uncoil the MoU bit by bit,section by section, phrase by phrase, shall we?
The MoU reads as, ” … based on a feasibility study by a multidisciplinary team from the Airports Authority Of India (AAI) and officials from the state government,” the land was found to be most suitable.
a) Why don’t we have any detail to all the possible sites of Cachar District that were presented to the AAI?
b) Was any land from the Hailakandi or Karimganj district even considered?
c) Since the construction would involve felling of 30 lakh tress and destroying 2,500 hectares of fertile land, was any other site anywhere in Barak Valley even considered outside the Silchar parliamentary constituency?
Section 3(a) reads as, ” . . Company, upon receipt of compensation from the State Government of Assam, will clear the following dues.” The “compensation” means the money which will be paid by the State Government to the company for buying the land. And the “dues” include, outstanding Provident Fund, all pending past gratuity claims, etc.
a) There is absolutely no mention of the exact compensation that the State Government is paying to the company. Not a single mention anywhere in the MoU.
b) Dolu is a profit making tea estate. The responsibility of paying the dues of the hardworking labourers rests with the Company. If there were no proposal for buying the land for airport, the Company would still have to clear the dues. In that case, why should the pending dues be paid out of the compensation ? Why isn’t any money from the compensation earmarked for the welfare of those who are protesting? Doesn’t this amount to State Government helping the Company in clearing the dues which they would have to pay anyways?
Section 3(b) reads as , “The Company assures the Union that it will not retrench or lay off any worker from its pay roll inspite of reduction in area under tea plantation.
Why isn’t there any mention of a time frame?
The Company is giving assurance to not lay off or retrench any worker, as of NOW! Under the provisions of law, the Company can still retrench or lay off all the workers at any time in the future. Why was the most crucial assurance drafted in such a vague and uncertain language. Isn’t this provision prone to be exploited by the Company whenever it deems convenient to do so?
Section 3(c) reads as, “The Company assures the Union that many workers would be deployed in new development activities…” How “many”? Where is the number? At least, an approximate number? Is this some kind of a nursery rhyme? What if the Company finds three labourers as it’s definition of “Many”. What then?
Section 3(d) reads as, “Plantation of new tea bushes in fresh available land”
How many new tea bushes will be planted?
Where’s is the time frame?
When will the fresh land be available to the Company?
Once again, an absolutely vague provision with zero specifics.
Section 3 (e) reads as, “The Company assures to invest in development infrastructure of the tea estate like labour quarter, internal roads, drinking water, etc and other ancillary developmental works.”
By “Invest”, how much has the company promised? What if the Company fulfils the provision by investing ₹1?
Where is the time frame, once again?
Section 3(i) reads as, “The company assures the Union to absorb workers of Mainagarh division in other divisions” What exactly is “Absorb”?
Will the word “absorb” have any specific connotation under the Labour laws? Why was this crucial guarantee of providing employment to the aggrieved labourers framed in such a ridiculously vague manner?
Section 3(j) reads as, ” .. New water management will be made for the worker families of Lalbagh division since it would lose the current water supply station”
When will it be made? Where’s the time frame? What will the labourers drink till the new water system is built?
From a reading of the much celebrated MoU, the following becomes absolutely clear.
1) The entire MoU has been drafted in a ridiculously vague language There exists no specifics, no reference to the labour law provisions, no legally tenable assurances, no specific time frame to any of the promises. It is less of a legal document and more of a script of political election speech.
2) The liability of the Government, as per the MoU, ends with the paying of compensation. The entire onus of rehabilitation of the aggrieved workers has been shifted to the Company. A monitoring committee, as per the MoU, is to be constituted by the District Administration to oversee the rehabilitation process. The entire arrangement has huge space for exploitation and betrayal; the space being as large as 2,500 hectares.
The labourers of Dolu aren’t crying and wailing for no reason. Their lives, their habitat, their subsistence is at stake.
As citizens of a democracy, we would do well if we could force our elected representatives to come out of the comfortable cocoons of their AC rooms and address the grievances and suspicions of the ones who are fighting a battle for survival.
The editorial has been published by Anirban Roy Choudhury and total responsibility of this piece rest with him.
Comments are closed.