The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Long wait for justice

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 09, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Long wait for justice

Meena Menon

IN AUGUST 2004, 22 years after Yashwant Dongarwar and a group of about 200 workers were denied work in 1982 in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court ruled that they were entitled to a claim of unemployment allowance.

Dongarwar, a landless labourer from Visora village, and the others had filed a case demanding unemployment allowance from the Government. Under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977, the Government has to pay every worker who demands work and does not get it within 15 days, an allowance which in those days was Re. 1 a day. The Bombay High Court order, dated August 30, 2004, had asked the sub-divisional officer to decide on the claims in accordance with the law. Dongarwar says no payment has been made despite the order.

The Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act was hailed as a model law and the draft National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill, tabled in Parliament last December, is based on it. The experience of Dongarwar and 200 other labourers shows that having a law in place alone cannot ensure justice. There are many flaws in the draft Bill that have to be corrected if it is to be effective.

Crucial issue

The issue of unemployment allowance is crucial; according to reports, it has never been paid even once in Maharashtra. This, of course, does not mean the Government provides jobs whenever people demand them. According to Keshav Gurnole from Shrishti, a voluntary organisation in Gadchiroli, about 200 people organised under the Bandhkam va Lakud Sangharsh Samiti, a registered trade union, had demanded work in 1982. They did not get it within the mandatory 15 days. They got it one and a half months later.

This group claimed unemployment allowance in 1982 for the days it was denied work. When the allowance was denied to it, the group went to court. In 1991, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court asked the Revenue Department to examine the issue and deal with it. However, nothing came of that order. A case was filed again in 1991 in the Bombay High Court, which resulted in the order in 2004.

Dongarwar is now old, his eyesight is fading and he cannot hear very well. One of the original petitioners, Rama Dupare died last year, 10 days before the High Court order. After 23 years, the situation is the same. Work is scarce and payment delayed. "We are fighting for our survival and paying us the allowance is the minimum the government could have done," says Dongarwar. This year, about 20,000 people have demanded work in Gadchiroli district of which only 5,000 were given work and that too for a maximum of eight days, according to Gurnole.

There is very little work available in Gadchiroli. According to Kisan Waghare, a landless labourer from Koregaon in Vadsa taluka, they get about 18 days work in four months. In Koregaon, payment comes after about four months. Waghare travels about 150 km looking for work and says the Government must provide them at least 100 days of work in a year. "Now in a year we are lucky if we get 18 days. There is a lot of migration from Gadchiroli."

Today Dongarwar and the others feel it was no use fighting the case. "We did get some work but it did not last for long. After we filed the case there were only assurances. No inquiry was ever conducted into the government's lack of accountability," he says. This year, too, in Vadsa, 320 people who were denied work, demanded the mandatory unemployment allowance but the demand has been rejected on flimsy grounds. The authorities said they should have made individual applications and not filed a collective petition, says Gurnole.

According to Subhash Lomte, trade unionist and coordinator, National Campaign Committee for Rural Workers, in the 1970s in Maharashtra all political parties were united on the demand for work and they took to the streets. Now the situation is different, he feels. "It is important to put pressure so that the laws can be effectively implemented. Wherever there is pressure, the Act has worked well."

Merely passing laws is not enough, as is obvious in Maharashtra. The Government has to recognise the right to work and provide employment for as long as there is a demand for it. It also has to pay unemployment allowance as mandated in the Act. The Central law that is being considered must correct the problems of implementation that are evident from the experience in Maharashtra. Otherwise it will be doomed to exist only paper.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Advani sets Jinnah among the parivar

After eight years, opportunity missed

Baglihar, Neutral Expert and `differences'

Advani's Karachi speech decoded

Manmohan's visit offers a chance

Long wait for justice

Advani's resignation

Commendable