Please download the August and September 2009 versions of Elaan by clicking on the links below:
August 2009 Issue of Elaan
September 2009 Issue of Elaan
Friday, September 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Crisis to Crisis: Eighty Years of Globalization
ARTICLE (Vol. 1, Issue 2, September 2009)
The financial crisis of 2007–09, began in July 2007 when a loss of confidence by investors in the value of securitized mortgages in the United States resulted in a crisis of liquidity (i.e. the free-flow of money/capital). The perceived credit risk in the general economy rose alarmingly in July 2007, reaching a peak on October 10, 2008. In September 2008 stock markets worldwide crashed and entered a period of large-scale downward trend, and a considerable number of banks, mortgage lenders and insurance companies failed in the following weeks. Although America's housing collapse is often cited as having caused the crisis, the financial system was vulnerable because of monetary policies in the US and Europe that made the cost of credit negligible therefore encouraging such high levels of unrealistic non-payable loans/debts.
The apparent cause of the financial crisis is the collapse of the $8 trillion investment in the US housing market. In September 2002, some economists had predicted that the collapse of the housing sector would jeopardize the survival of numerous financial institutions engaged in the housing sector. It was commonly claimed during the first weeks of the financial crisis that the problem was simply caused by reckless, sub-prime lending. However, the sub-prime mortgages were only part of a far more extensive problem affecting the entire $20 trillion US housing market: the sub-prime sector was simply the first place that the collapse affecting the housing market showed up.
People who had increased their wealth substantially with the extraordinary run-up of stock prices were spending based on this “increased” (paper) wealth. This led to the consumption boom, with the savings rate out of disposable income falling from 5% in the mid-90s to 2% by 2000. The stock-wealth induced consumption boom led people to buy bigger and/or better homes and other commodities beyond their means, since they sought to spend some of their new stock wealth on housing etc. This high-consumption low-savings bubble began to burst in 2007, as the building boom led to so much over-supply that prices could no longer be supported. Prices nationwide began to fall rapidly, with this process accelerating through the fall of 2007 and into 2008. As mortgage payment became impossible to fulfil, more homeowners faced foreclosure. Voluntary foreclosures took place when people realized that they owe more than the value of their home, and decided that paying off their mortgage is in effect a bad deal. In cases where a home was valued far lower than the amount of the outstanding mortgage, homeowners were able to effectively pocket thousands of dollars by simply walking away from their mortgage. This destroyed the Fannie Mays and Freddie Macs and the domino effect took the rest of the world under.
The root cause of the current crisis is the same as the great depression of 1929 – the surplus values locked in commodities could not be extracted and circulated. The Great Depression was a worldwide economic devastation starting in 1929 and ending in the early 1940s for different countries. It was the largest and most important economic devastation in modern history of the capitalist system.
Marxist descriptions of political economy emphasizes the tendency of capitalism to create unbalanced accumulations of wealth, leading to over accumulations of capital and a repeating cycle of devaluations through economic crises. Marxism holds that recession and depression as unavoidable under free-market capitalism as there are no restrictions on accumulation of capital other than the market itself. The end of the depression in the U.S is associated with the onset of the war economy of World War II, beginning around 1939.
In the current situation, the commodities have been sold due to the easy and cheap credit which could not be paid back. Now the financial institutes have the possession of commodities (like houses, cars etc) through mortgage foreclosures which they cannot sell, instead of shops and factories having unsold commodities during the great depression. That is why the first to collapse are the financial institutions bringing down the stock markets with a delayed collapse of the production system leading to increasing unemployment (in the USA it is approaching 8%). The current crisis will lead to another great depression if the production system collapses – a convenient yardstick is the unemployment percentage (loss of jobs). If it crosses 20%, President Obama of the USA will have no option but to admit that the current recession is indeed another great depression! This is the true picture of great, stable, reliable, benevolent, beautiful, and free-for-all Capitalism.
The financial crisis of 2007–09, began in July 2007 when a loss of confidence by investors in the value of securitized mortgages in the United States resulted in a crisis of liquidity (i.e. the free-flow of money/capital). The perceived credit risk in the general economy rose alarmingly in July 2007, reaching a peak on October 10, 2008. In September 2008 stock markets worldwide crashed and entered a period of large-scale downward trend, and a considerable number of banks, mortgage lenders and insurance companies failed in the following weeks. Although America's housing collapse is often cited as having caused the crisis, the financial system was vulnerable because of monetary policies in the US and Europe that made the cost of credit negligible therefore encouraging such high levels of unrealistic non-payable loans/debts.
The apparent cause of the financial crisis is the collapse of the $8 trillion investment in the US housing market. In September 2002, some economists had predicted that the collapse of the housing sector would jeopardize the survival of numerous financial institutions engaged in the housing sector. It was commonly claimed during the first weeks of the financial crisis that the problem was simply caused by reckless, sub-prime lending. However, the sub-prime mortgages were only part of a far more extensive problem affecting the entire $20 trillion US housing market: the sub-prime sector was simply the first place that the collapse affecting the housing market showed up.
People who had increased their wealth substantially with the extraordinary run-up of stock prices were spending based on this “increased” (paper) wealth. This led to the consumption boom, with the savings rate out of disposable income falling from 5% in the mid-90s to 2% by 2000. The stock-wealth induced consumption boom led people to buy bigger and/or better homes and other commodities beyond their means, since they sought to spend some of their new stock wealth on housing etc. This high-consumption low-savings bubble began to burst in 2007, as the building boom led to so much over-supply that prices could no longer be supported. Prices nationwide began to fall rapidly, with this process accelerating through the fall of 2007 and into 2008. As mortgage payment became impossible to fulfil, more homeowners faced foreclosure. Voluntary foreclosures took place when people realized that they owe more than the value of their home, and decided that paying off their mortgage is in effect a bad deal. In cases where a home was valued far lower than the amount of the outstanding mortgage, homeowners were able to effectively pocket thousands of dollars by simply walking away from their mortgage. This destroyed the Fannie Mays and Freddie Macs and the domino effect took the rest of the world under.
The root cause of the current crisis is the same as the great depression of 1929 – the surplus values locked in commodities could not be extracted and circulated. The Great Depression was a worldwide economic devastation starting in 1929 and ending in the early 1940s for different countries. It was the largest and most important economic devastation in modern history of the capitalist system.
Marxist descriptions of political economy emphasizes the tendency of capitalism to create unbalanced accumulations of wealth, leading to over accumulations of capital and a repeating cycle of devaluations through economic crises. Marxism holds that recession and depression as unavoidable under free-market capitalism as there are no restrictions on accumulation of capital other than the market itself. The end of the depression in the U.S is associated with the onset of the war economy of World War II, beginning around 1939.
In the current situation, the commodities have been sold due to the easy and cheap credit which could not be paid back. Now the financial institutes have the possession of commodities (like houses, cars etc) through mortgage foreclosures which they cannot sell, instead of shops and factories having unsold commodities during the great depression. That is why the first to collapse are the financial institutions bringing down the stock markets with a delayed collapse of the production system leading to increasing unemployment (in the USA it is approaching 8%). The current crisis will lead to another great depression if the production system collapses – a convenient yardstick is the unemployment percentage (loss of jobs). If it crosses 20%, President Obama of the USA will have no option but to admit that the current recession is indeed another great depression! This is the true picture of great, stable, reliable, benevolent, beautiful, and free-for-all Capitalism.
BJP's Fatal Obsession With Jinnah
EDITORIAL (Vol. 1, Issue 2, September 2009)
Researching on Jinnah appears to have become a fatal obsession for leaders of the BJP. The spectre of Jinnah has claimed yet another victim, Jaswant Singh, a senior leader of the BJP. In 2005, L.K. Advani had almost dug his own grave when he spoke in glowing terms about Mohammad Ali Jinnah at his mausoleum in Pakistan and described him as a rare secular man! What therefore draws these right-wing leaders towards Jinnah like fire-flies towards the proverbial fire?
The partition between India and Pakistan has always been the source of the divisive communal politics of BJP. To make Jinnah the villain of the partition suited BJP (as well as the Congress) since that pitted one community against the other. The communal contradiction covered up all other contradictions that in fact gave rise to the two nation theory. Unfortunately however, blaming Jinnah alone would not result in political dividend forever for BJP. Somewhere down the line, a realization dawned inside BJP that unless Congress and, more particularly, Nehru could be shown as equally responsible for the partition, the anti-congress Hindu votes couldn’t be attracted. The problem however lay in balancing the acts of Congress leaders like Nehru, Sardar Patel, Gandhiji with that of Jinnah.
In 2005, Advani made the first attempt under the guise of paying tributes to Jinnah, got his act all mixed up and ended up losing his hold over the party. Jaswant Singh’s attempt is even more pathetic. He did attack Nehru but committed the blasphemy of attacking Sardar Patel as well who undoubtedly is an icon in Gujarat. Jaswant Singh did not have a chance to last after making that gross blunder. Who will be the next to try the fine tuning?
The real history of the division of course lies in understanding the socio-economic development of the Indian sub-continent. Though it was not the objective of the Britishers to usher capitalism in India, colonization over a period 150 years had sown the seeds of capitalism in the semi-feudal soil. Analysing the conflict in the nascent capitalism at the time of Independence, we had in August 2002, written the following in the manifesto of the New Socialist Movement:
“The pre-independence contradiction between the Muslim league represented by Jinnah and the Congress led by Gandhi, Nehru and Patel reflected the quest of the “Muslim Capital” to carve out for itself a separate nation state in order to safeguard its existence, growth and development from the suppression by the “Hindu Capital” of the majority community in case of an undivided India. The partition of the country, instead of resolving this contradiction, accentuated the same manifolds leading to the consolidation of the communal forces in both the countries. The suspicion of each others motive egged on by the fundamentalist elements of both the countries, never brought peace amongst these unnatural twins having centuries of common lifestyle and culture.”
The Muslim league, which he headed, did make attempts to remain in an united federated India and M.A Jinnah presented his famous fourteen points on March 28, 1929 to the Muslim League Council at their session in Delhi. Primarily, the fourteen points dealt with the safe-guarding of the political power of the minorities within the Indian federation more particularly in the Central legislature. Jinnah wanted atleast 1/3rd seats to be reserved for the Muslims. The proposal of Jinnah was of course rejected by Congress.
Nation-states in the era of capitalism have their own dynamics and growth as did the births of India and Pakistan. No amount of rewriting history can change this reality. What should concern us is not what took place sixty two years back but where India and Pakistan are today and where we would go from here.
Researching on Jinnah appears to have become a fatal obsession for leaders of the BJP. The spectre of Jinnah has claimed yet another victim, Jaswant Singh, a senior leader of the BJP. In 2005, L.K. Advani had almost dug his own grave when he spoke in glowing terms about Mohammad Ali Jinnah at his mausoleum in Pakistan and described him as a rare secular man! What therefore draws these right-wing leaders towards Jinnah like fire-flies towards the proverbial fire?
The partition between India and Pakistan has always been the source of the divisive communal politics of BJP. To make Jinnah the villain of the partition suited BJP (as well as the Congress) since that pitted one community against the other. The communal contradiction covered up all other contradictions that in fact gave rise to the two nation theory. Unfortunately however, blaming Jinnah alone would not result in political dividend forever for BJP. Somewhere down the line, a realization dawned inside BJP that unless Congress and, more particularly, Nehru could be shown as equally responsible for the partition, the anti-congress Hindu votes couldn’t be attracted. The problem however lay in balancing the acts of Congress leaders like Nehru, Sardar Patel, Gandhiji with that of Jinnah.
In 2005, Advani made the first attempt under the guise of paying tributes to Jinnah, got his act all mixed up and ended up losing his hold over the party. Jaswant Singh’s attempt is even more pathetic. He did attack Nehru but committed the blasphemy of attacking Sardar Patel as well who undoubtedly is an icon in Gujarat. Jaswant Singh did not have a chance to last after making that gross blunder. Who will be the next to try the fine tuning?
The real history of the division of course lies in understanding the socio-economic development of the Indian sub-continent. Though it was not the objective of the Britishers to usher capitalism in India, colonization over a period 150 years had sown the seeds of capitalism in the semi-feudal soil. Analysing the conflict in the nascent capitalism at the time of Independence, we had in August 2002, written the following in the manifesto of the New Socialist Movement:
“The pre-independence contradiction between the Muslim league represented by Jinnah and the Congress led by Gandhi, Nehru and Patel reflected the quest of the “Muslim Capital” to carve out for itself a separate nation state in order to safeguard its existence, growth and development from the suppression by the “Hindu Capital” of the majority community in case of an undivided India. The partition of the country, instead of resolving this contradiction, accentuated the same manifolds leading to the consolidation of the communal forces in both the countries. The suspicion of each others motive egged on by the fundamentalist elements of both the countries, never brought peace amongst these unnatural twins having centuries of common lifestyle and culture.”
The Muslim league, which he headed, did make attempts to remain in an united federated India and M.A Jinnah presented his famous fourteen points on March 28, 1929 to the Muslim League Council at their session in Delhi. Primarily, the fourteen points dealt with the safe-guarding of the political power of the minorities within the Indian federation more particularly in the Central legislature. Jinnah wanted atleast 1/3rd seats to be reserved for the Muslims. The proposal of Jinnah was of course rejected by Congress.
Nation-states in the era of capitalism have their own dynamics and growth as did the births of India and Pakistan. No amount of rewriting history can change this reality. What should concern us is not what took place sixty two years back but where India and Pakistan are today and where we would go from here.
A Step Forward In The Fight Against Globalization
LABOUR NEWS (Vol. 1, Issue 2, September 2009)
Numerous trade unions and progressive people’s movements came under the banner of the Trade Union Centre of India (TUCI) on August 13th in an all-India struggle against globalization through the demands for just and egalitarian labour laws. Rallies were held in the capital cities of over a dozen states in the country.
In Ahmedabad, over a thousand workers and other activists gathered for a meeting at Juna Vadaj, were addressed by leaders of the Gujarat Federation of Trade Unions, New Socialist Movement and Jan Sangarsh Manch. Amrish Patel, General Secretary of the GFTU outlined the demands raised by the TUCI with the central government on an all-India basis. Following the meeting the workers and activists held a rally from Vadaj to the Collector’s office to hand over a memorandum addressed to the Labour Minister of the Government of India. The memorandum called for numerous demands to nullify pro-globalization and anti-labour legislation, including – (1) Amendments to existing industrial and labour law to make permanency the statutory right of workers who have completed 240 days or more of service; (2) Prohibition of contract labour in perennial economic sectors; (3) Payment of back wages as a statutory right of workers in illegal terminations; (4) Immediate enactment of social security and urban housing legislation for the working poor and; (5) Immediate implementation of the Construction and Other Building Workers Act.
A cause for much hope in terms of the future of the broader struggle was the large-scale participation of non-industrial, non-unionized labour, especially large numbers of informal workers, both men and women, in the rally. In addition there was the active engagement by movements fighting for civic and human rights. This bodes well in the larger fight for protective legislation and organizing of workers in the informal sector, who form the overwhelming majority of India’s workforce. The oppression and exploitation of the working-class is one of the biggest, most virulent fallouts of globalization and the increasing penetration of monopoly capital. But the onslaught by the money-bags and powers that be can be fought back if labour unions and people’s movements remain united in treading a progressive and revolutionary path in fighting for the emancipation of those toiling masses facing the brute-end of globalization. The all-India rally held by TUCI on August 13th, 2009 was one such step in this direction.
Numerous trade unions and progressive people’s movements came under the banner of the Trade Union Centre of India (TUCI) on August 13th in an all-India struggle against globalization through the demands for just and egalitarian labour laws. Rallies were held in the capital cities of over a dozen states in the country.
In Ahmedabad, over a thousand workers and other activists gathered for a meeting at Juna Vadaj, were addressed by leaders of the Gujarat Federation of Trade Unions, New Socialist Movement and Jan Sangarsh Manch. Amrish Patel, General Secretary of the GFTU outlined the demands raised by the TUCI with the central government on an all-India basis. Following the meeting the workers and activists held a rally from Vadaj to the Collector’s office to hand over a memorandum addressed to the Labour Minister of the Government of India. The memorandum called for numerous demands to nullify pro-globalization and anti-labour legislation, including – (1) Amendments to existing industrial and labour law to make permanency the statutory right of workers who have completed 240 days or more of service; (2) Prohibition of contract labour in perennial economic sectors; (3) Payment of back wages as a statutory right of workers in illegal terminations; (4) Immediate enactment of social security and urban housing legislation for the working poor and; (5) Immediate implementation of the Construction and Other Building Workers Act.
A cause for much hope in terms of the future of the broader struggle was the large-scale participation of non-industrial, non-unionized labour, especially large numbers of informal workers, both men and women, in the rally. In addition there was the active engagement by movements fighting for civic and human rights. This bodes well in the larger fight for protective legislation and organizing of workers in the informal sector, who form the overwhelming majority of India’s workforce. The oppression and exploitation of the working-class is one of the biggest, most virulent fallouts of globalization and the increasing penetration of monopoly capital. But the onslaught by the money-bags and powers that be can be fought back if labour unions and people’s movements remain united in treading a progressive and revolutionary path in fighting for the emancipation of those toiling masses facing the brute-end of globalization. The all-India rally held by TUCI on August 13th, 2009 was one such step in this direction.
Will Ishrat Jahan Get Justice?
OPINION (Vol. 1, Issue 2, September 2009)
Sriram Ananth
On June 15th 2004, a 19-year old Mumbai student, Ishrat Jahan, was killed in an “encounter” by the Gujarat police along with three others, on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. The Gujarat state government and police claimed that she was part of a team of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operatives who were planning to assassinate Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other senior BJP leaders for their role in the state-led, anti-Muslim violence of 2002. According to the FIR filed by the police after the killings, they had received intelligence that terrorists were planning to come by car from Mumbai directly to Gandhinagar to conduct their assassinations and were killed in an alleged gun-battle with the police near Ahmedabad.
The version of the police had numerous loopholes to begin with as argued in the court by advocate Mukul Sinha, First, it is curious that the Gujarat police upon receiving this supposed tip-off, didn’t inform Maharashtra police to intercept the car and arrest those inside it or even why they didn’t intercept the car right at the border of the state, instead waiting for them to come all the way to Ahmedabad. Second, in the encounter the police said that one of the occupants took position with an AK-47 and started firing, yet there were no injuries to police nor signs of any gun-battle, while all four occupants were killed (this, of course is the standard line parroted in Indian police reports of staged encounter-killings). In the present case, the complainant is from the crime branch, the person who recorded the statement is also from the crime branch, the encounter was carried out by the crime branch and the investigation was also carried out by the crime branch. Therefore, one cannot expect fair investigation from the same agency
Finally, the so-called encounter was led by none other than the notorious “encounter specialist” and a trigger-happy police officer of Modi, DG Vanzara. Vanzara and his team who are now in Sabarmati prison charged for the killings of Saurabuddin Sheikh and Kauser Bi. Their involvement in the encounter of Tulsi prajapati (another witness in the same case) is being investigated under the order of Supreme Court. State government has agreed to deposit Rs. ten lakhs as compensation in Supreme Court.
Ishrat might well have been just another statistic in the long litany of human rights violations perpetrated upon the people by the state of Gujarat.
In a brave stand taken by Ishrat’s mother, Shamima Kausar filed a petition for a CBI probes into the killings. She disputed the investigation led by the local crime branch, saying it was a fabricated case, that her daughter was not involved in any terrorist organization, and demanded a fair probe into the killings. Waging a legal battle with the support of Jan Sangarsh Manch’s lawyer and activist, Mukul Sinha, Shamima has now dealt a small, symbolic blow to Modi’s fascist state with the Gujarat High Court setting up a Special Investigation Team to probe the incident. This was announced by Justice KS Zhaveri in early August, with the court declining the request for a CBI probe but set up a three-member team comprising senior police officers of the state to investigate the Ishrat Jahan encounter case. The team, consisting of additional DGP Pramod Kumar(convener), IG Mohan Jha and DIG JK Bhatt, has been asked to submit its report within three months.
Sriram Ananth
On June 15th 2004, a 19-year old Mumbai student, Ishrat Jahan, was killed in an “encounter” by the Gujarat police along with three others, on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. The Gujarat state government and police claimed that she was part of a team of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operatives who were planning to assassinate Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other senior BJP leaders for their role in the state-led, anti-Muslim violence of 2002. According to the FIR filed by the police after the killings, they had received intelligence that terrorists were planning to come by car from Mumbai directly to Gandhinagar to conduct their assassinations and were killed in an alleged gun-battle with the police near Ahmedabad.
The version of the police had numerous loopholes to begin with as argued in the court by advocate Mukul Sinha, First, it is curious that the Gujarat police upon receiving this supposed tip-off, didn’t inform Maharashtra police to intercept the car and arrest those inside it or even why they didn’t intercept the car right at the border of the state, instead waiting for them to come all the way to Ahmedabad. Second, in the encounter the police said that one of the occupants took position with an AK-47 and started firing, yet there were no injuries to police nor signs of any gun-battle, while all four occupants were killed (this, of course is the standard line parroted in Indian police reports of staged encounter-killings). In the present case, the complainant is from the crime branch, the person who recorded the statement is also from the crime branch, the encounter was carried out by the crime branch and the investigation was also carried out by the crime branch. Therefore, one cannot expect fair investigation from the same agency
Finally, the so-called encounter was led by none other than the notorious “encounter specialist” and a trigger-happy police officer of Modi, DG Vanzara. Vanzara and his team who are now in Sabarmati prison charged for the killings of Saurabuddin Sheikh and Kauser Bi. Their involvement in the encounter of Tulsi prajapati (another witness in the same case) is being investigated under the order of Supreme Court. State government has agreed to deposit Rs. ten lakhs as compensation in Supreme Court.
Ishrat might well have been just another statistic in the long litany of human rights violations perpetrated upon the people by the state of Gujarat.
In a brave stand taken by Ishrat’s mother, Shamima Kausar filed a petition for a CBI probes into the killings. She disputed the investigation led by the local crime branch, saying it was a fabricated case, that her daughter was not involved in any terrorist organization, and demanded a fair probe into the killings. Waging a legal battle with the support of Jan Sangarsh Manch’s lawyer and activist, Mukul Sinha, Shamima has now dealt a small, symbolic blow to Modi’s fascist state with the Gujarat High Court setting up a Special Investigation Team to probe the incident. This was announced by Justice KS Zhaveri in early August, with the court declining the request for a CBI probe but set up a three-member team comprising senior police officers of the state to investigate the Ishrat Jahan encounter case. The team, consisting of additional DGP Pramod Kumar(convener), IG Mohan Jha and DIG JK Bhatt, has been asked to submit its report within three months.
Gujarat HC rejects petition of Helios Pharmaceuticals
LABOUR NEWS (Vol. 1, Issue 2, September 2009)
Amrish Patel
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. R. Brahmbhatt of Gujarat High Court has rejected petition being SCA no 7710 of 2009 filed by Helios Pharmaceuticals challenging order of Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad rejecting approval applications seeking approval of their action of termination of services of ten workmen.
The brief facts of the case are that the concerned workmen with other workmen had organized themselves against company's action of indulging in to the unfair labour practice and also action of non compliance of the statutory provisions. in retaliation M/s Helios Pharmaceuticals had on 12th May 2007 issued a show cause notice to the concerned workmen and demanded explanation about their alleged misconduct of remaining absent from 9.5.2007 to 15.5.2007. The concerned workmen with the help of Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha had raised demand challenging legality and validity of show cause notice. The dispute came to be referred before the Ld. Industrial Tribunal as being Reference No.158 of 2007. The company thereafter abruptly terminated the services of the concerned workmen on 24.12.2007.
The company had filed the application seeking approval of action of termination before the Ld. Industrial Tribunal. The union Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and the concerned workmen objected the applications raising preliminary objection to the effect that the company was required to seek permission and not the approval application as it was not maintainable in law. Considering the preliminary objection, the Ld. Industrial Tribunal after hearing the parties and after considering the fact situation as also settled legal position and Act provision held that approval applications filed were not maintainable and M/S Helios Pharmaceuticals ought to have filed permission application seeking permission by following prescribed procedure.
That being aggrieved, Company preferred above referred Special Civil Application No.7710 of 2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which was contested by the concerned workmen through Shri Rajesh Mankad, advocate and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 29.7.2009 dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of Ld. Industrial Tribunal.
Amrish Patel
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. R. Brahmbhatt of Gujarat High Court has rejected petition being SCA no 7710 of 2009 filed by Helios Pharmaceuticals challenging order of Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad rejecting approval applications seeking approval of their action of termination of services of ten workmen.
The brief facts of the case are that the concerned workmen with other workmen had organized themselves against company's action of indulging in to the unfair labour practice and also action of non compliance of the statutory provisions. in retaliation M/s Helios Pharmaceuticals had on 12th May 2007 issued a show cause notice to the concerned workmen and demanded explanation about their alleged misconduct of remaining absent from 9.5.2007 to 15.5.2007. The concerned workmen with the help of Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha had raised demand challenging legality and validity of show cause notice. The dispute came to be referred before the Ld. Industrial Tribunal as being Reference No.158 of 2007. The company thereafter abruptly terminated the services of the concerned workmen on 24.12.2007.
The company had filed the application seeking approval of action of termination before the Ld. Industrial Tribunal. The union Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and the concerned workmen objected the applications raising preliminary objection to the effect that the company was required to seek permission and not the approval application as it was not maintainable in law. Considering the preliminary objection, the Ld. Industrial Tribunal after hearing the parties and after considering the fact situation as also settled legal position and Act provision held that approval applications filed were not maintainable and M/S Helios Pharmaceuticals ought to have filed permission application seeking permission by following prescribed procedure.
That being aggrieved, Company preferred above referred Special Civil Application No.7710 of 2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which was contested by the concerned workmen through Shri Rajesh Mankad, advocate and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 29.7.2009 dismissed the petition and confirmed the order of Ld. Industrial Tribunal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)