Arguments in favour of 167 base and divisor

Dear Yashwantji,

I request you to consider publishing the following in bhadas4media.com . The main reason for writing this to you is to clarify on the issue as there is some confusion even among learned people as to which DA formula is correct – Gazette Notified 167 Base and Divisor formula or the INS dictated 189 Base and Divisor formula as it has put forth that it has changed the base and divisor to 189 because of change in the implementation date set by the Hon Supreme Court, viz, Nov 11, 2011.

The other day I learnt that even big lawyers are of the opinion that 189 Base and Divisor might be the correct one. This has necessitated me to write to you to put forth my arguments in favour of demanding implementation of 167 Base and Divisor formula. Here I go.

a) The Hon Supreme Court has not told in its judgment that DA base can be changed to 189 as a result of change in implementation date to Nov 11, 2011.

b) When we say that the Supreme Court has upheld the recommendations of Majithia Wage Board, it includes 167 DA base also. Is it not? If we argue that 189 Base is correct, then we should start saying ‘the Supreme Court has, in fact, has not accepted the recommendations in totality, and by changing the implementation date, it has changed the DA base also, which is a deviation from upholding it in totality’.

c) When the management is taking into consideration Jan and July as determining months for DA revision, why it is not being applied for Nov 2011 also. Why AICPI average of 184 (average for July 2010 to June 2011) for calculating DA is not taken into consideration? If 184 is taken as average, employees would be forced to give money to the management under Dearness Allowance head, as the calculation would be 184 minus 189, which is minus 5 points!

d) It is wrong on the part of management to calculate Rs 0 as DA for Nov & Dec 2011 and then take average of Jan to Dec 2011 AICPI for calculating DA for Jan 2012.

e) When the managements say they have changed the DA base because of change in implementation date, they should also say because of change in implementation date, the DA calculation month is also changed to Nov and May of every year instead of Jan and July.

f) When the Supreme Court has said in its judgment that the wage board is the result of fair considerations and ‘there is no valid ground for interference’, is not changing the DA base to 189 an interference?

e) DA is for supporting Basic Pay to help workers for meeting expenses due to rise in price. Denying DA for 18 months for the Basic Pay that was decided on July 1, 2010, is illegal and unlawful, for there was an inflation to the tune of 13% from July 1, 2010 to Nov 2011. By taking 189 as Base managements have denied the employees 13% inflation in costs for which they are eligible.

f) 167 Base is the result of Manisana Basic Pay on 30.6.2010, plus 30% Interim plus DA under Manisana for the said Basic Pay. The new Majithia Basic Pay is the sum total of the above three. If managements want to change the DA base to 189, then the new New Basic Pay should be Basic Pay on October 31, 2011, plus 30% Interim on the that BP, plus Manisana DA on October 31, 2011. As the management is not calculating new basic pay like this, and instead take the Majithia Scales, it is wrong and illegal to follow 189 Base. To make 189 as legally correct, for example, a Class II (Rs 500 cr to 1,000 cr) company’s sub-editor’s basic pay scale should be changed Rs 16,000 to Rs 34,000 (approx), instead of the present Rs 14,000 to Rs 30,700.

Thanks and regards,

(एक मीडियाकर्मी द्वारा भेजे गए पत्र पर आधारित)