The Hindu 11.11.2009
Petition filed against Madurai Corporation
Mohamed Imranullah S.
| “Labourers were not paid salary arrears of over Rs.2 crore” |
They are from Mahabubnagar district in Andhra 265 were employed in storm water drainage work
MADURAI: A public interest litigation petition has been filed in the Madras High Court Bench here alleging that around 265 labourers involved in the Madurai Corporation’s project of laying storm water drainage system in various parts of the city recently were not paid salary arrears of over Rs. 2 crore.
A Division Bench of Justices D. Murugesan and S. Nagamuthu on Tuesday directed the petitioner’s counsel A. Thirumurthy to submit by Thursday, the list of labourers, the number of days they had worked, the daily wage fixed for different category of employees and arrears to be paid to each of them.
The judges said that the Corporation as well as the contractor of the project would be given an opportunity to check the veracity of details provided by the labourers before passing any orders in the PIL petition. They also wanted the details of the payments that had been already made to the workers.
The Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Migrant Labour Union based in Andhra Pradesh had filed the petition.
Its affidavit read that Palamoor is the old name of Mahabubnagar district which was the “second most backward district” in the country. The poor residents of this area migrated to various places in search of work.
“These labourers eke out their livelihood through manual labour within Andhra Pradesh and other States and most of them belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities… These labourers are accustomed to work in miserably inhuman conditions,” the president of the Union P. Narayanaswami said.
Around 265 such workers were employed in the storm water drainage work at Karpaga Nagar, B.B. Kulam, Avaniapuram, Arapalayam and Teppakulam areas here. The Union claimed that they were not paid salary arrears for nearly seven months between September 11, 2008 and May 30, 2009.
Stating that the Union had made many representations to the Collector, Corporation Commissioner and Labour Inspector in this regard, its president said: “It is quite unfortunate that the official respondents who are obliged to take immediate action on such a burning issue have turned a deaf ear for reasons best known to them.”
Counsel for the Municipal Corporation told the Bench that the construction work was handed over to a private contractor who was liable to pay the labourers. On the other hand, the contractor’s lawyer contended that he had nothing to do with the matter as the labourers were engaged by a sub-contractor.
