Rattho Bai’s victory paves way for several women who were denied employment

This is a relatively old brief, but I missed posting here; I beleive atleast 500 women have now found work in CIL

Rattho Bai’s family lost land admeasuring 0.200 hectare which was acquired by the government for the benefit of South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (SECL) for carrying out mining activity, as the land was coal bearing area in Chaal village of Raigarh District Chhattisgarh.  Notification for acquisition under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was issued on 24.09.2004 and the award was passed on 02.06.2005. In absence of any male member in the family, Rattho Bai applied for employment under the extant Rehabilitation Policy of the State Government. The claim was refused on the ground that the petitioner being a woman is not eligible for employment in terms of Clause (VIII) K (b) of the Uniform Guideline for employment to Land Looser, issued by the SECL on 8/13-8-2002. After several efforts to seek redressal from the company in vain, Rattho Bai decided to go to the court. The high court, after several hearings ultimately provided justice to her. This has paved way for several women and current over 200 are likely to have been benefitted. In the course of the judgement the court observed “ It is apt to note here that reservation of seats for women in panchayats and municipalities have been provided under Articles 243(d) and 243(t) of the Constitution of India. The purpose of the constitutional amendment is that the women in India are required to participate more in a democratic set-up especially at the grass root level. This is an affirmative step in the realm of women empowerment. The 73rd and 74th Amendments of the Constitution which deal with the reservation of women has the avowed purpose, that is, the women should become parties in the decision-making process in a democracy that is governed by the rule of law.”

 The court went on to further state “Their active participation in the decision-making process has been accentuated upon and the secondary role which was historically given to women has been sought to be metamorphosed to the primary one. The sustenance of gender justice is the cultivated achievement of intrinsic human rights. Equality cannot be achieved unless there are equal opportunities and if a woman is debarred at the threshold to enter into the sphere of profession for which she is eligible and qualified, it is well-nigh impossible to conceive of equality. It also clips her capacity to earn her livelihood which affects her individual dignity.”

 

SECL has otherwise appointed several women candidates in its establishment.  SECL would explain that the lady candidates mentioned in the said document have been appointed on compassionate ground. The court held that the source or manner of appointment is not a criterion for denying appointment to others. If a woman candidate can be employed on compassionate ground, a person whose entire agricultural land has been acquired is also entitled for appointment. As a matter of principle, right to get appointment in lieu of acquisition of land is not a lesser right than the right to get compassionate appointment in the event of death of a government servant. In the case of land oustee also, there is loss of means of livelihood and more so, when the entire agricultural land has been acquired.

Will The Recent Indo-US Energy Strategy Aid Atmanirbhar Bharat?

 https://www.impactnews.in/will-the-recent-indo-us-energy-strategy-aid-atmanirbhar-bharat/

Sreedhar Ramamurthi July 24, 2020 Opinion

Amidst the low demand for oil in the context of the extended effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and the global oil storage at its maximum, it is very strange and anachronic that the Indian government is seriously discussing the possibility India storing oil in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase their nation’s strategic oil stockpile. As many readers may be aware India has made its own strategic storage currently in Vishakhapatnam and Mangalore and has been exploring the possibility in other places in the Western Ghats and in Rajasthan.

The concern over the strategic meeting and its outcome is not this potential storage of our strategic resource need in a place as far as the United States whilst countries which have been always friendly with us and oil-rich are close by and could offer the same facilities, if we cannot do it for ourselves. This is in a very preliminary stage and for the present if the cooperation on this aspect enables us to understand the practices in the United States and to compare notes and improve wherever possible in our strategic storage locations and become self-dependent (Atmanirbhar). However, one would have thought that if there was anything, we should have sought, is support in enhancing investments and improving our exploration capabilities to be able to find enough oil within our jurisdiction.
Strategic storage may not be a critical factor since India’s current refining capacity of 249.9 million tonnes per annum exceeded domestic consumption of petroleum products by nearly 40 million tonnes in the previous fiscal and likely to be higher this fiscal. Therefore, there is actually no big pressure to have a strategic storage.Further the demand of 335 million tonnes per annum by 2030 and to 472 million tonnes by 2040 according to government estimates need to be seriously re-looked and tempered in the wake of the changing scenario in the energy sector globally.
Americans in the recent times, especially since the turbulence in their trade relations with China, have been becoming protectionist at one end and reaching out to expand their trade with other nations. In the midst of our own recent dissonance with the Chinese, perhaps the Trump Administration is trying to capitalise onthe situation. Our hydrocarbon trade with United States is touching nearly 10 Billion US $, almost double the 2017-18 figures, and this virtual meet has further affirmed to promote greater hydrocarbon trade between the two countries. Here trade effectively means that we import more of American petroleum products. It is also not very surprising that the Americans are also pushing for expensive gas and through the U.S.-India Natural Gas Task Force, tampering with the policy and regulatory space in the name of “innovative projects to support the Government of India’s vision to increase the share of natural gas in India’s energy sector”.

The really serious concern about this virtual dialogue on energy strategy between the two countries stems from a statement of  Dan Brouillette, US Secretary of Energy, who said: “The US and India share a bedrock belief that there is no distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ energy. We are committed to deploying every energy fuel and technology at our disposal.”

If this statement has been made based on what the Indian Government officials have shared, it means that like the United States, India may also be reneging the Paris Accord. While the bilateral venture is euphemistically called the US-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy-Research (PACE-R) and seeks to advance smart grids and energy storage, the announcement was focused on promoting dirty energy through so called “transformational” supercritical and advanced coal technologies and false climate solutions like Carbon Capture and Storage. Added to this was the further cooperation on nuclear technologies which have proven to be the most expensive and risky. Unfortunately, these are issues not seriously debated among the public and long-term considerations are not raised but short-term contextual political decisions have long and tenuous consequences.

While a lot of nice sentiments are expressed in terms of clean energy and women empowerment in the energy sector, one must be careful that we do not lose plot of moving towards a more democratic ownership of clean energy resources which should be the goal of any Indian Government. It is time that India serious redesigns it development model with a greater focus on distributed, end-use oriented energy generation and utilisation model that can generate local livelihoods, enable better management of organic waste, and improve agricultural biodiversity instead of being led into a garden path of climate unfriendly energy choices to pander to volatile political situations.

Is The Clarion Call For Local Pe Vocal Turning Out To Be A Rhetoric?

 https://www.impactnews.in/is-the-clarion-call-for-local-pe-vocal-turning-out-to-be-a-rhetoric/

Sreedhar Ramamurthi June 23, 2020 Opinion

Exactly a month ago Prime Minister said ” Sarvam Aatmam Vasham Sukham. That which is in your control gives you happiness. We have to move ahead with new energy “announcing a new package of Rs 20 lakh crore. I am not going into the details of those packages and what it really means to the poor. This was aimed at self-dependence, Atmanirbhar, and he egged people with his inimitable slogan – Local pe Vocal – “We need to be vocal for our local products. Not just buy but also publicise them.”What is happening in Chhattisgarh today with the central government owned Coal India subsidiary is in strong contrast to the statements made in the air in Delhi.

Coal India Limited in 2007, before the 2008 Mining policy decided that project affected people from the coal mines should form cooperative societies and get registered under the local laws. Such societies would have 100% exemption from submitting the earnest money deposit and 20% of the work of transportation of coal and sand to be earmark for award to cooperatives at the lowest (L1) cost or at the scheduled rates.

Since 2007 in several mining areas of the subsidiaries of coal India local people have been attempting to form cooperatives and recent times producer companies to access these opportunities.They too wanted to join the mainstream in economic development.In several of these cases the people who were intent where those who were not properly rehabilitated or were not compensated. The Coal India subsidiaries have still to demonstrate even one example of proper resettlement and rehabilitation. One of the producer company has named itself the coal mines “bhuvisthapith” company, meaning company of displaced.

However none of the subsidiaries of Coal India ever proactively attempted to enable the local communities to partake in the economic activity and as growingly most of the activities of the subsidiaries their outsourced there was a huge vested interest created between corrupt officials and the cronies.

Korba district in Chhattisgarh has been witness to massive coal mining and industrialisation since the 80s,has thousands of families who have neither been provided the proper compensation nor have been resettled and rehabilitated properly have been struggling over the past decade to plead for the implementation of this policy. They had this time also petitioned to the Prime Minister and in response to the the enquiry from the PMO had informed that they were giving preference to such affected persons and awarded contracts and tenders and even relaxed the condition of depositing the Earnest Money, which is an essential part of any tender in 2017 itself and since then people had been more hopeful.

Constant pestering and occasional protests by the communities were quelled and in 2018 the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) unable to withstand local pressure agreed in the meeting of its functional directors after detailed deliberations that they will on a “trial basis” implement this in the Saraipalli OCP.  The coal companies like several other industries have been taking the cover of covid-19 to accomplish some of the dirty operations and had issued a tender to start the Saraipalli Open Cast Minein Bud Bud village. This completely disappointed the people who had formed a Cooperative Society and hoped to find their wherewithal and were agreeing to part with everything that they possessed. They were quite sure that any protest by them would invariably lead to police Action and arrest. They have approached the High Court which has called for the company to respond affirmatively.
Sensing from the statements made by the company’s counsel, that the tender was a composite one and not just for transport and therefore the policy did not apply, the local people have got a hint of the seditious manner in which the company has provoked have resorted to innovative ways of protesting by maintain physical distance, wearing masks and sitting in front of the gate of the different projects of the company.

People are worried that the SECL may be up to more tricks to deny them and realise that the PM’s slogans or even undertaking given by the company to the PMO does not actually happen in reality. It is strange that the State Government behave like mute spectators without positively intervening on behalf of their people. If in the new dispensation when so much of concessions are showered on the private sector, why should not the people get what is legitimate and reasonable. Afterall they were the original owners of that land! In the energy sector it seems all “Sukham” is reserved for the corporates.

Coal Auction : Will It Be A Boon Or A Bane ?

 https://www.impactnews.in/coal-auction-will-it-be-a-boon-or-a-bane/

Sreedhar Ramamurthi June 22, 2020 Opinion

With much fanfare the Ministry of Coal, invited and the Prime Minister enthusiastically put up a good show for which he is pretty well known by now. The on and off-line, physical and digital spaces were well covered, and the key and pet industrialists were invited to participate. One could rationalise saying that it was the Federation of Indian Industries that was partnering the government.

Now let us come to the specifics of the events and its implications. The event was billed as the greatest breakthrough for Atmanirbhar Bharat, a word which originally means self-dependent in Hindi and its use in the recent times has completely distorted the sense of self-dependence leave alone self-reliance. The event was branded as the launch of “commercial” coal mining in India and it looked as if the public sector and the big boys of industry were undertaking coal mining all these years as a charity and for the first time it was being undertaken with a commercial motive!

This current process of so-called commercial mining began with a move to initiate 100 percent FDI in coal mining in September 2019. Now, as a citizen we are not supposed to ask how we can call it Atmanirbhar if the mines are going to be completely owned by foreign companies. However, the fact is this policy of 100 percent FDI preceded the slogan and therefore you are not supposed to raise such issues. So, the event in which every speaker from the Hon PM to the anchor, everyone used this slogan atleast once to emphasise that we will be self-dependent despite the fact that anyone in the world could come and completely own our coal mines.

The next was a move to issue an ordinance, just a month before the Parliament was to convene, to amend the mining law to enable this and mine coal for the market instead for a specified end-use. It is not that this was not allowed. The private sector and the inefficient public sector lead by Coal India Limited and in recent years the Neyveli Lignite Corporation have been pushing for more and more concessions in terms of ease of expansion, over riding of environmental norms, making public pay through their nose to meet the bad loans to the power companies by the banks. A quarter of the quantity of coal from any mine could be sold in the market for over three years now and it has not lead to any reduction in imports or improvement in the economy. So, this big drama was perhaps intended to transparently do the match fixing where companies and the government in front of the entire country are talking – the government to give and cronies to take – the public resource. Needless to say, that all this is ostensibly to be transparently auctioned as directed by the Supreme Court in the 2-G and Coal Block Allocation cases.

Why do I call it open match fixing?

The launch function was open to anyone who registers on the website. The website also cleverly had a question box where you were free to ask your questions. This would enable everyone who is an ardent supporter to say that one could even question as the PM was talking. However, the twist was that these questions were perhaps to probe who is asking the question and to monitor rather than to provide any answer. This art of being “transparently-opaque”, is an evolved art from the notorious statement of the current PM of erstwhile Prime Minister bathing with a raincoat. This is bathing in the heavy downpour of Mumbai rains without getting wet!

None of the questions atleast from people I know and I myself raised were unanswered. Some of the questions were very simple – whether the government thinks it is important to adequately inform the people on whose land these 41 coal blocks being put under the hammer, could people own the mine and the government enable them manage much in the nature of Farmer Producer Companies, there was not even a statement by any of the speakers from the government or the partners in this match fixing. While this time the process is led was the Hon PM and the drama was created it is actually the 11th tranche of a series of unsuccessful auctions and each time mending rules and regulations to suit the suitors.

Several groups including sarpanches from some of the prospective villages had written to the government and various civil society groups and rights groups had expressed the need to revisit this entire process have fallen into deaf ears. Even responses to the discussion paper presented January, feedback on the legislation all have been transparently ignored just as any of the peoples’ concern. People are actually sick and tired of hearing that all this is being done for the poor and the new twist is given to them as being “aspirational”.

What if anything is new?

The bidding rules and the entry barriers have been eased. There is no threshold of experience or of investments. Once you succeed in your bid, you can mortgage your coal. It is worth pointing out that in the earlier tranches of auction the CAG had noticed peculiarities which suggested of bid-rigging. This time it is becoming evident as the rule allows for just two players to bid for a mine. One would recall how the sale of BALCO there were just two-bidders one quoting exactly half of the other!

The Ministry has also been talking of “embedded” clearances. This means that that implicitly all the clearances will be provided by the respective arms of the government. This is actually not called for since our Minsters themselves are sitting over the appraisal bodies and remotely sanctioning the mining in national parks and sanctuaries, over densely populated areas and fifth schedule areas where mandatory consent from the gram sabha is essential. If that is not enough the Project Management Group of the PMO can intervene. All this is was not attractive enough that the Chief of Vedanta wanted that except the public hearing, which can always be rigged, the rest must completely be based on self-certification because of the “difficulties” in obtaining clearances. The Chairman of Tatas wanted a coal exchange so that the speculation on prices could be there and with his background in managing more of software companies and revenues his wish will also be perhaps soon granted.

The singular silence of the lack of demand, over 40 Giga watts of stranded power assets still bleeding the banks and solar energy becoming cheaper than coal were all immaterial in this new “historic” launch of commercial coal mining. This was new as any sensible person, no matter from which sector would clearly question the need for expansion of coal, how to seriously revisit the investments or junk them to look for distributed renewables. One does not know if the Government is trying to fool itself or hoodwink the world when it says coal-gasification is environmentally sound and climate friendly! What was new is that despite the pandemic clearly showing that these kind of industrialisation and growth is not sustainable and so vulnerable even to a single lock-down of a quarter, the knowledgeable decision makers want to make bigger and bigger mistakes of the same kind. This is very clearly putting good money behind the bad and will need to be backed by a “bad-bank” too.
Resource Curse with a Bang
Lot of literature exists on the resource curse and lots of communities are victims of the same as concede by even the Hon Prime Minster in his speech. However, to just brush it aside with brave words, not recognising even the District Mineral Foundation funds have failed to reach the affected and poor is sheer dishonesty with the people who are going to be the victims. Billions of tonnes of coal are going to be handed over to the corporates at throw away prices. Some of the blocks on the axe are places were in the past too companies have come to acquire their land and displace. They have resisted and have been witness to the high handedness of the state. For example, the Machakata block the state and the company even colluded to have the public hearing on a day when all women in area would be on the annual fast. Now that this has the branding and support of the highest authority, the minions will rough ride until we reach the bottom of the pit.
Will this bring enough money?
The figures vary but the government is sating that nearly Rs 50,000 crores will come in over the next four to five years. Is that good enough? Consider this, a recent reply in the Parliament the government stated that every year the Coal India makes losses to the tune of twelve thousand crores from close to 251 mines. Just shutting them down will save us this kind of money. Given the kind of debt-equity ratios being allowed we can expect few more Niravs and Mallayas in the making.
Reversing Gazhni Muhamed
History has it that Gazhni Muhammed raided Indian Sub-continent seventeen times to loot India and as patriotic Indians we hear heroic stories of how he was vanquished each time. We got colonised by stealth and force and it required rare individuals like Gandhi and Subash Bose to redeem us. Today while the brand is “Atmanirbhar”, it is for the 11th time the Government of our Independent country is inviting global corporates to colonise! One of our contemporary anthropologist Dr Shalini Randeria, characterises the Indian State as a cunning state, but this is proving to be more than that “a selling state”!

One wonders what would have been the nature of this event, if the Akhil Bharitya Adivasi Mahasabha or an Association of People Affected by Mining who have not been properly rehabilitated after being displaced by the 600-plus coal mines or the self-effacing Swadeshi Jagran Manch were to partner with the government. But not in this case because despite communities and organisations writing to the Government about the gross injustice of auctioning the land without even giving the people a sense of what holds for them in future who are currently living and eking out atleast a subsistence livelihood, this Government does not care. Perhaps the PM cares!

AIIB’s Covid Financing For India Comes Under Scanner

 https://www.impactnews.in/aiibs-covid-financing-for-india-comes-under-scanner/

Sreedhar Ramamurthi May 12, 2020 Opinion

All multilateral banks have certain policies and processes. Notwithstanding the growing pressure of the affected communities and civil society, these banks bring out documents essentially to satisfy themselves on paper. It is a make-believe world, that always states that the environmental and social implications have been carefully analysed, often at a whopping cost by an ex-patriate “specialist” and safeguards actually followed in lending. Subsequent reports, unless there is a big hue-and- cry by the affected communities, merely follow the criteria that all is well with the project and eventually the project has been successful.

The recent project document released by Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank on the COVID-19 Emergency Response and Health Systems Preparedness Project unmasks the Banks for its complete hypocrisy. The project aims to deliver a combination of emergency response and health system capacity building efforts consistent with the COVID-19 containment plan that was recently developed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), Government of India (GOI) with support from the World Health Organization (WHO) and partners. In addition to scaling up interventions to limit human-to-human transmission, interventions that strengthen health systems will be rolled out to improve the country’s capacity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and allow it to be better prepared to respond to any future disease outbreaks.

When one looks into the details of the project, it claims that the US D $ 1.5 Billion sought and granted under this loan would enable 70 percent of the districts in India to have a covid isolation facility and will have strengthened our long-term ability to deal with pandemics. Not only that, it would have also enhanced our medical research capabilities. AIIB claims it is a coordinated effort of the multilateral banks and as it has been its practice since the beginning to co-finance the project. The World Bank is the major financier bringing in a billion USD.

Anachronic Financing that Unmasks all Claims

The document released a couple of days ago, states that the project implementation period is from May 11th 2020 to 31st of December 2024. One would therefore assume that the project document would be available and there would be scope for analysis and feedback. However, the biggest give-away is that there are no conditions for disbursements and further there is a clause that allows for a huge “retro-active” financing. Up to forty percent of the fund could have been used from 1st of January to May 11th even before the project start date. If nearly half the money has been accounted for before the project started, what is then the use of all the unnecessary paper and the consultants writing on environmental and social safeguards and transparency in the financial processes.

What would have been the expenditure on which this forty percent would have been spent. The document states, (M) “major planned procurement includes goods (medical equipment; supplies and commodities; diagnostic reagents, including kits; and PPE including masks, gloves, etc.); services (development and dissemination of communication messages and materials); some small civil works (strengthening of hospitals and laboratories, etc.); and a few consultancy selections. It is anticipated that most of the goods are available in India, barring certain medical equipment, which are currently being imported and not available―off the shelf.”

Since such project documents, as a religion, need to identify the beneficiaries, the document tamely states, “(G) given the nature of COVID-19, the primary project beneficiaries will be infected people, at-risk populations, medical and emergency personnel, service providers at medical and testing facilities (both public and private), and public and animal health agencies engaged in India’s COVID-19 response. Staff of key technical departments and health departments will also benefit from the project as their capabilities increase through institutional capacity strengthening.”

Hollier-than-thou AIIB claims that its support will immediately enable the GOI scale up efforts to limit human-to-human transmission, including reducing local transmission of cases and containing the progress of the pandemic from phase III (cluster of cases) to phase IV (community transmission). One wonders what if any major action except for the lockdown for necessary to enable this.

We already are a witness to the saga of procuring unusable and highly inflated diagnostic kits which is now a matter of contention in the Supreme Court. We also know how some of the Gujarat based companies have been always in the limelight to procure orders in such circumstances. What takes the cake is the section titled governance and corruption in the document which aims to claim that it is holier than the World Bank – AIIB is committed to preventing fraud and corruption in the projects it finances. For this project, the WB’s Anti-Corruption Guidelines shall apply, which are materially consistent with AIIB’s Policy on Prohibited Practices (2016) (PPP). However, AIIB’s PPP will apply in regard to the prohibited practices of “Misuse of Resources” and “Theft”, which are not covered under the WB’s Anti-Corruption Guidelines. AIIB reserves the right to undertake investigations in regard to the Prohibited Practices of “Misuse of Resources” and “Theft”, not covered under the WB’s Anti-Corruption Guidelines.

Now that the post-Paris Bank, which claims itself to be lean, green and clean has already has its money taken and spent, it begs the question why this hypocrisy?

Was This May Day, The Worst Day For Labour?

 https://www.impactnews.in/was-this-may-day-the-worst-day-for-labour/

Sreedhar Ramamurthi May 4, 2020 Opinion

Amidst the pandemic, the Parliamentary Committee on Labour, submitted its report on the 23rd April, a week before the May Day. The Industrial Relations Code 2019, introduced in the Parliament had to be examined by ministerial standing committee, to the utter dislike of the government because of the issues raised by all the trade unions. Even Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, the trade union arm of the BJP had raised atleast a dozen negatives of the code.

The most stringent criticisms have come from the members of the committee itself. K.Subbarayan is a veteran left leader representing the labour intensive Tirupur constituency in Tamil Nadu, famous for its textiles. He has presented a dissent note calling out the objects and reasons themselves a sham. He calls it a “blatant lie of the government which takes away all the hard-earned rights of the crores of workers. He goes on to warn that this law “is ominous, insidious and pernicious for the democracy and people”.

Do these changes in the labour law regime warrant such a harsh statement or is it that the member belongs to the left and therefore is opposing the moves of the state?Developments over the years of this government and reports of the committees raise deep concerns.

Stealthy Beginning

The NDA Government started demonstrating its low priority of workers and their conditions just a month after its assumption of its first term in office in 2014 through an innocuous but far reaching notification . This proposed setting up a Central Analysis and Intelligence Unit and with stated objective of simplifying business regulations and bring in transparency and accountability in labour inspections, restricted the mandatory labour inspections i) The establishments where fatal or serious accident has occurred in last two years. ii) The establishments where strikes/lock out/retrenchment has taken place in two years. iii) Closed establishments till their workers’ dues are settled. As one can clearly see, the first two would have already been out in the open and media may have already covered the incident and inspection at that stage would in any case have lost its purpose of preventing such a situation. In the third, one wondered what would be the conditions of workers the inspectors inspect if the establishment was already closed? This virtually destroyed the already weak labour inspection system. Whatever little power and some fear that enterprises had was lost. This led to centralising the authority and reducing the scope of inspection even if there was information about an emerging situation as the “occupier” (as the owner is referred to in the Factories Act) has to be informed prior to inspection and the report written in the premises itself. Today the entire Inspectorate of Factories in every state is only waiting for the existing officials to retire.

Changing Laws to Codes

Soon after this big dent was made, the government announced as early as 2015, that it will amalgamate 44 pre-existing legislations into four codes on different issues of workers – Wage, Social Security, Occupational Health and Industrial Relations. When this announcement was made the then Labour Minister stated that though Labour was a concurrent subject “the States are on the same page as they all feel the need for a conducive atmosphere for development.” However, this amalgamation is still not complete. The Code on Wages, 2019 has been passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented by the President in August 2019. The Code on Occupational Safety Health & Working Conditions, 2019 was introduced in July, which was also referred to the Standing Committee. The Committee submitted its report in February this year. The Code on Social Security, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December and is also being examined by the Parliamentary Committee.

Ambiguity in Definition: Law Makers Themselves Perplexed

Who is a worker and who is an employee? The law makers themselves are themselves unsure. The Parliamentary Committee observes “terms ‘Employee’ and ‘Worker’ have been differentiated and defined separately on the logic that the dispute resolution mechanism under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is available only for workers and persons engaged in certain administrative and managerial capacities beyond a prescribed wage ceiling are not getting the benefit of the dispute resolution mechanism. The Committee are not at all convinced with the argument for making an artificial differentiation between Employee and Worker. As a matter of fact, every employee is a worker and vice-versa. Therefore, the industrial dispute mechanism and other rights like forming of Trade Unions, being office bearers of the Trade Unions, etc. should be made available to each and every employee/worker, notwithstanding the relevant provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act which was enacted as early as 1947.

In their Report on ‘Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code,2019′ the Committee had pointed out that the unwarranted differentiation between ’employee’ and ‘worker’ had led to much perplexity and befuddlement and thus the Committee had asked the Ministry to use one uniform word everywhere. Since that has apparently not been done as yet, the Committee now recommend that wherever the two words have been referred to in this Code separately, only one term i.e. ’employee’ be used invariably. Alternatively, both the terms should co-exist everywhere viz. ’employee/worker’ or ’employee and worker’ so as to ensure that there is no discrimination in the applicability of labour laws to the employee/worker. This uniformity should be maintained in all the four Codes and the Committee are confident that once it is done, most of the undesirable litigation will cease to exist.”

Ominous Future?

The current pandemic has exposed the how close to the brink the workers are throughout the world. Lay-offs, cuts in wages and squeezing extra hours of work on one hand and the deplorable conditions of the migrant workers seem to be the current normal across the world. The desperation of the workers to go back to their villages clearly indicates that the current economic model has completely failed the worker. This has also laid bare the gross economic, social and spatial inequalities. This month the CMIE estimated a 23 percent hike in unemployment which was already at an all-time high. Workers seem to be the last in the priority of this Government.

If the laws are a sham and lawmakers themselves confused and owners making use of every opportunity to exploit one fears much worse is ahead for the workers. There are generic problems with the entire process of revamping the laws in the name of transparency and ease-of doing business. This need to be systematically examined and the government and employers made accountable to the lives of those who create wealth and pay taxes.

Shame on EAC! Obtaining fresh EC is a long process is a reason for waiver..

The mindless coal power project which is being pushed at a great cost to the environment and people in several areas of the world seems to have achieved yet another milestone in side-stepping the law. 

It is no less than a climate crime to fetch coal from Australia, lug in a train for 800 kilometers, build an exclusive rail-line through forests, fetch water from over 100 kilometers and export power to Bangladesh. 

See the amendments of amendments that the EAC is privileged to undertake!

 

MINUTES OF THE 37th MEETING OF THE RE-CONSTITUTED EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (EAC) ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) OF THERMAL POWER PROJECTS HELD DURING 23rd January 2020.

ANY OTHER ITEM WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR 

(37.6) 2x800 MW Imported Coal based Godda Thermal Power Project at Villages Motia, Patwa, Gangta and Nayabad of Godda Block and Sondiha, Petbi, Gayghat, Ranganiya and Mali villages of Poraiyahaat Block, Distt. Godda, Jharkhand by M/s Adani Power (Jharkhand) Limited- reg. amendment in Environmental Clearance. 

(37.6.1) Project Proponent submitted online application on IA/JH/THE/54853/2016 dated 23.12.2019 for amendment in EC dated 31.8.2017.  

  (37.6.2) Project Proponent has made the presentation inter-alia submitted the following information:

 i. The Environmental Clearance (EC) for 2x800 MW Imported coal based Thermal Power Project proposed in District Godda, Jharkhand was issued to M/s Adani Power (Jharkhand) Ltd. vide Ministry‟s letter dated 31.8.2017.

 ii. The Ministry also amended the EC for change in water source from Chir River to Ganga River vide letter dated 3.9.2019.

 iii. Para 5 of EC amendment dated 03.9.2019 mentioned as below: “Storage reservoir earlier planned in 441 acres has been reduced to 156 acres as the water drawl period has now been increased from 4 months to 6 months.”

 iv. As per the water allocation of 36 MCM/annum made by Water Resource Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated 15.01.2018 stipulated that the water is to be drawn during June till December (07 months). Accordingly, water reservoir will accommodate the water drawn for seven months. Accordingly, the following change is required. “Storage reservoir earlier planned in 441 acres has been reduced to 156 acres as the water drawl period has now been increased from 4 months to 7 months.” 

v. Condition No.7(i) of the EC amendment dated 3.9.2019 stipulates that Stage-I forest clearance to be submitted and formal amendment to be issued after furnishing the Stage-I Clearance. As the Stage-I Forest Clearance was accorded by the Ministry‟s Regional Office, Ranchi vide letter dated 28.6.2019 for diversion of 13.3293 ha for laying water pipeline from Chir River to Power plant, this condition may now be deleted. 

vi. Project Proponent vide their letter dated 16.12.2019 submitted that the said project has now been designated as Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under SEZ Act, 2005 vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter dated 20.8.2019 and Notification No.S.O.3327(E) dated 16.9.2019 for an area of 222.668 ha (550.23 acres). The area has been classified as Sector Specific Economic Zone for Power.

 vii. The Environmental Clearance for Power Plant was issued under Sl.1(d) of the Schedule of EIA Notification. 

viii. In view of the new classification of power plant in the SEZ, the project also requires Environmental Clearance under Sl.No.7(c): Special Economic Zone (SEZ) of the Schedule of EIA Notification, 2006. Obtaining fresh EC is a long process. As there is no change in project configuration and scope or entity even after notification of SEZ, the said EC may also be granted under SEZ.

 ix. As per the EC and its amendment, project area was 558 acres. As per the notification of Ministry of Commerce and Industry, SEZ area is 550.23 acres. (37.6.3) Committee noted that project is exclusively meant for export of Power/electricity, and hence notified under Special Economic Zone. Proponent mentioned that the EC was issued for stand alone Thermal Power Plant. Even after notification of SEZ, it remains to be the Single Unit SEZ and there no change in the scope/configuration of the project. The differential area of 7.7  acres shall be developed with greenbelt by project proponent. 

Member Secretary informed that Infrastructure-1 Sector of IA Division has also recommended for giving amendment in EC for inclusion of project category under SEZ.

 (37.6.4) Committee after detailed deliberations, recommended for amendment in EC regarding inclusion of SEZ, storage of water reservoir area to 7 months, deletion of condition on Forest Clearance subject to following additional condition. i. The area of 7.7 acres (Originally proposed: 558 acres & Notified land: 550.23 acres) shall be developed with greenbelt. Demarcation of this land with coordinates and progress of greenbelt is to be submitted in the compliance report.  

How ignorant is our legal fraternity!

How ignorant is our legal fraternity!

Supreme Court Order in 114/2014

In the course of hearing, this Court on 16.01.2019 passed an order taking cognizance of the deleterious effect of mining on vegetation, after mining activities are over. In particular, it is observed that an area which is mined results in complete elimination of grass which in turn denies fodder to the herbivores.

The only solution can be re-grassing of such mined areas. It is not in dispute that re-grassing technology is available in this country.

We see no reason why the area which has been mined should not be restored so that grass and other vegetations including trees can grow in the mining area for the benefits of animals.

We are of the view that this can be achieved by directing the Union of India to impose a condition in the mining lease and a similar condition in the environmental clearance and the mining plan to the effect that the mining lease holders shall, after ceasing mining operations, undertake re-grassing the mining area and any other area which may have been disturbed due to their mining activities and restore the land to a condition which is fit for growth of fodder, flora, fauna etc.

The Union of India may devise appropriate methods for ensuring compliance of this condition after the mining activity is over at the cost of the mining lease holders. This condition shall be in addition to those conditions which have already been imposed for achieving the same purpose under the mine closure plan. This condition shall not be imposed in derogation of any conditions which are already in force.

The court and the great set of lawyers present in the court failed to mention that the current law goes beyond re-grassing!

If the judges were knowledgeable or the lawyers honest enough to mention that the current legislation calls for tougher conditions than what they are prescribing and all the miners are in complete violation.

Here are the guidelines…

Guidelines for preparation of Mine Closure Plan

https://ibm.gov.in/index.php?c=pages&m=index&id=214

Preamble:

1. The Central Government vide Notification No. GSR 329 (E) dated 10.04.2003 and No. GSR 330 (E) dated 10.04.2003 amended the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 respectively. As per these amendments all the existing mining lessees are required to submit the "Progressive Mine Closure Plan" along with prescribed financial sureties within 180 days from date of notification. Further, the mining lessee is required to submit "Final Mines Closure Plan" one year prior to the proposed closure of the mine. In the notification it has been enumerated that the "Progressive Closure Plan" and "Final Closure Plan" should be in the format and as per the guidelines issued by the Indian Bureau of Mines.

2. Mine closure encompasses rehabilitation process as an ongoing programme designed to restore physical, chemical and biological quality disturbed by the mining to a level acceptable to all concerned. It must aim at leaving the area in such a way that rehabilitation does not become a burden to the society after mining operation is over. It must also aim to create as self-sustained ecosystem.

3. Mine closure operation is a continuous series of activities starting from day one of the initiation of mining project. Therefore, progressive mine closure plan will be an additional chapter in the present mining plan and will be reviewed every five years in the Scheme of Mining. As progressive mine closure is a continuous series of activities, it is obvious that the proposals of scientific mining have had included most of the activities to be included in the progressive mine closure plan. Therefore, reference to relevant paragraphs and a gist of the same in progressive mine closure plan will be sufficient.

4. Final mine closure plan as per statute, shall be considered to have its approval at least nine months before the date of proposed closure of mine. This period of nine months is reckoned as preparatory period for final mine closure operations. Therefore, all proposals for activities which have to be carried out after production of mineral from the mine or mining is ceased, shall be included in the final mine closure plan. The final mine closure plan will thus be a separate document with detailed chapters as per guidelines given below.

The mine closure plan will be prepared as per the guidelines given as enclosure. The guidelines include the specific activities both in progressive mine closure plan and final mine closure plan.

---

ENCLOSURE

GUIDELINES FOR MINE CLOSURE PLAN

1. Introduction:

The name of the lessee, the location and extent of lease area, the type of lease area (forest, non-forest etc), the present land use pattern, the method of mining and mineral processing operations, should be given.

1.1   Reasons for closure: 

The reasons for closure of mining operations in relation to exhaustion of mineral, lack of demand, uneconomic operations, natural calamity, directives from statutory organisation or court etc. should be specified.

1.2   Statutory obligations: The legal obligations, if any which the lessee is bound to implement like special conditions imposed while execution of lease deed, approval of mining plan, directives issued by the Indian Bureau of Mines, conditions imposed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, State of Central Pollution Control Board or by any other organisation describing the nature of conditions and compliance position thereof should be indicated here (the copies of relevant documents may be attached as Annexure).

1.3   Closure plan preparation: The names and addresses of the applicant and recognised qualified person who prepared the Mine Closure Plan and the name of the existing agency should be furnished. A copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors or any other appropriate administrative authority as the case may be on the decision of closure of mine should be submitted.

2. Mine Description:

2.1 Geology: Briefly describe the topography and general geology indicating rock types available, the chemical constituents of the rocks / minerals including toxic elements if any, at the mine site.

2.2 Reserves: Indicate the mineral reserves available category wise in the lease area estimated in the last mining plan / mining scheme approved along with the balance mineral reserves at the proposed mine closure including its quality available (for final mine closure plan only).

2.3 Mining Method: Describe in brief the mining method followed to win the mineral, extent of mechanisation, mining machinery deployed, production level etc.

2.4 Mineral Beneficiation: Describe in brief the mineral beneficiation practice if any indicating the process description in short. Indicate discharge details of any tailings / middlings and their disposal / utilisation practice followed.

3. Review of Implementation of Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining including five years Progressive Closure Plan upto final closure of mine:

Indicate in detail the various proposals committed with special emphasis on the proposals for protection of environment in the approved Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining including five years Progressive Closure Plan upto the closure of mine vis-a-vis their status of implementation. Highlight the areas, which might have been contaminated by mining activities and type of contaminants that might be found there. The reasons for deviation from the proposals if any with corrective measures taken should also be given.

4.Closure Plan:

4.1 Mined-Out Land: Describe the proposals to be implemented for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined-out land including the manner in which the actual site of the pit will be restored for future use. The proposals should be supported with relevant plans and sections depicting the method of land restoration / reclamation / rehabilitation.

4.2 Water Quality Management : Describe in detail the existing surface and ground water bodies available in the lease areas and the measures to be taken for protection of the same including control of erosion, sedimentation, siltation, water treatment, diversion of water courses , if any, measures for protection of contamination of ground water from leaching etc. Quantity and quality of surface water bodies should also be indicated and corrective measures proposed to meet the water quality conforming the permissible limits should also be described. Report of hydrological study carried out in the area may also be submitted. The water balance chart should be given. If there is potential of Acid Mine Drainage the treatment method should be given.

4.3 Air Quality Management: Describe the existing air quality status. The corrective measures to be taken for prevention of pollution of air should be described.

4.4. Waste Management: Describe the type, quality and quantity of overburden, mineral reject etc. available and their disposal practice. If no utilisation of waste material is proposed, the manner in which the waste material will be stabilised should be described. The protective measures to be taken for prevention of siltation, erosion and dust generation from these waste materials should also be described. If toxic and hazardous elements are present in the waste material the protective measures to be taken for prevention of their dispersal in the air environment, leaching in the surface and ground water etc, should be described.

4.5 Top Soil Management: The top soil available at the site and its utilisation should be described.

4.6 Tailing Dam Management : The steps to be taken for protection and stability of tailing dam, stabilisation of tailing material and its utilisation, periodic desilting, measures to prevent water pollution from tailings etc., arrangement for surplus water overflow alongwith detail design, structural stability studies, the embankment seepage loss into the receiving environment and ground water contaminant if any should be given.

4.7 Infrastructure: The existing infrastructural facilities available such as roads, aerial ropeways, conveyer belts, railways, power lines, buildings & structures, water treatment plant, transport, water supply sources in the area etc. and their future utilisation should be evaluated on case to case basis. If retained, the measures to be taken for their physical stability and maintenance should be described. If decommissioning proposed, dismantling and disposal of building structures, support facilities and other infrastructure like electric transmission line, water line, gas pipeline, water works, sewer line, telephone cables, underground tanks, transportation infrastructure like roads, rails, bridges, culverts etc., electrical equipments and infrastructures like electric cables, transformers to be described in connection with restoring land for further use.

4.8 Disposal of Mining Machinery: The decommissioning of mining machineries and their possible post mining utilisation, if any, to be described.

4.9 Safety and Security: Explain the safety measures implemented to prevent access to surface openings, excavations etc., and arrangements proposed during the mine abandonment plan and upto the site being opened for general public should be described.

4.10 Disaster Management and Risk Assessment: This should deal with action plan for high risk accidents like landslides, subsidence flood, inundation in underground mines, fire, seismic activities, tailing dam failure etc. and emergency plan proposed for quick evacuation, ameliorative measures to be taken etc. The capability of lessee to meet such eventualities and the assistance to be required from the local authority should also be described.

4.11 Care and maintenance during temporary discontinuance : For every five yearly review ( as given in the mining scheme), an emergency plan for the situation of temporary discontinuance or incomplete programme due to court order or due to statutory requirements or any other unforeseen circumstances, should include a plan indicating measures of care, maintenance and monitoring of status of unplanned discontinued mining operations expected to re-open in near future. This should detail item wise status monitoring and maintenance with periodicity and objective.

5. Economic Repercussions of closure of mine and manpower retrenchments:

Manpower retrenchment, compensation to be given, socio-economic repercussions and remedial measures consequent to the closure of mines should be described, specifically stating the following.

5.1 Number of local residents employed in the mine, status of the continuation of family occupation and scope of joining the occupation back.

5.2 Compensation given or to be given to the employees connecting with sustenance of himself and their family members.

5.3 Satellite occupations connected to the mining industry - number of persons engaged therein - continuance of such business after mine closes.

5.4 Continued engagement of employees in the rehabilitated status of mining lease area and any other remnant activities.

5.5 Envisaged repercussions on the expectation of the society around due to closure of mine.

6. Time Scheduling for abandonment:

The details of time schedule of all abandonment operations as proposed in para 4 should be described here. The manpower and other resources required for completion of proposed job should be described. The schedule of such operations should also be supplemented by PERT (Programme Evaluation & Review Technique), Bar chart etc.

7. Abandonment Cost: 

Cost to be estimated based on the activities required for implementing the protective and rehabilitation measures including their maintenance and monitoring programme.

8. Financial Assurance: 

The financial assurance can be submitted in different forms as stated in Rule 23(F)(2) of Mineral Conservation and Development (amendment) Rules, 2003. In the mine closure plan, the manner in which financial assurance has been submitted and its particulars have to be indicated. For Model Bank Guarantee Form, please click here.

9. Certificate: 

The above-mentioned actions have been taken to be stated clearly in the mine closure plan. A certificate duly signed by the lessee to the effect that said closure plan complies all statutory rules, regulations, orders made by the Central or State Government, statutory organisations, court etc. have been taken into consideration and wherever any specific permission is required the lessee will approach the concerned authorities. The lessee should also give an undertaking to the effect that all the measures proposed in this closure plan will be implemented in a time bound manner as proposed.

10. Plans, Sections etc.: 

The chapter 1,2,3 and 4 should be supported with Plans and Sections. The Closure Plan may also be submitted depicting photographs, satellite images on compact disc etc. wherever possible.

NOTE

1. The mine closure plan in progressive stage will be prepared by paragraphs where sub-paragraphs may be added for detailed items whereas the final mine closure plan will be prepared in chapters with sub-chapters as necessary with adequate details.

2. The guidelines for the both the documents will be same as above.

Why this?

The Courts are passing verdicts, Justice is a far cry and notional according to the whims and fancies of our legal fraternity!