दिल्ली की एक लेबर कोर्ट ने बिज़नेस इंडिया टेलीविज़न इंटरनेशनल के मुख्यालय ‘268, मस्जिद मोठ, उदय पार्क, नयी दिल्ली’ की कुर्की-ज़ब्ती यानी एटैचमेंट के आदेश दिये हैं। इसी जगह से देश का पहले न्यूज़ एंड करेंट अफ़ियर्स चैनल ‘टीवीआई’ का प्रसारण होता था, जिसे अनमाने तरीके से फरवरी 2000 में मैंनेज़मेंट ने बन्द कर दिया था और चैनल में कार्यरत सैकड़ों कर्मचारियों का बक़ाया ढ़कार लिया था।
मैंनेज़मेंट की ऐसी मनमानी के ख़िलाफ़ कर्मचारियों ने श्रम क़ानूनों का सहारा लिया। जिसके मुताबिक़, दिल्ली सरकार ने साल 2000 में ही लॉक आउट को ग़ैरक़ानूनी करार दिया था। आगे चल 12 मई 2004 को दिल्ली के एक इंडस्ट्रियल ट्राइबुनल ने ये फ़ैसला (Award) दिया कि अदालत की शरण में गये 130 कर्मचारी तब तक अपना वेतन-भत्ता पाने के हक़दार हैं जब तक कि मैंनेज़मेंट उनका हिसाब चुकता नहीं कर देता।
ग़ौरतलब है कि टीवीआई चैनल के मालिक का नाम अशोक आडवाणी है और इस प्रभावशाली मीडिया मालिक की तीन पत्रिकाएँ आज भी प्रकाशित होती है। इनके नाम हैं – बिज़नेस इंडिया, इनसाइड आउटसाइड और ऑटो इंडिया। प्रकाशक के इस क़ारोबार के अलावा, अशोक आडवाणी, की आज भी कम से कम 18 कम्पनियों में हिस्सेदारी है और वो इनके निदेशकों में शामिल हैं। इन 18 में से 11 कम्पनियाँ, बिज़नेस इंडिया समूह के मुख्यालय – ‘18वीँ मंज़िल, निर्मल टॉवर, नरीमन प्वान्ट, मुम्बई’ से संचालित होती हैं। अशोक आडवाणी के पास सैकड़ों करोड़ की सम्पत्ति है, लेकिन वो क़ानूनी हथकंडे अपनाकर बीते 15 साल से मीडिया कर्मियों के हक़ को हड़पे बैठा है।
इसके बाद बीते 11 साल से कर्मचारी मैंनेज़मेंट से अपने खून-पसीने की रक़म पाने के लिए अदालत में धक्के खा रहे थे। इसी सिलसिले में 12 मार्च 2015 को अतिरिक्त ज़िला जज एल के गौड़ ने मैंनेज़मेंट की सम्पत्ति की कुर्की-ज़ब्ती करने का फ़रमान जारी किया है। 52 मीडिया कर्मियों के मामले में अदालत ने इस कार्रवाई को पूरा करके रिपोर्ट देने के लिए राजस्व विभाग को 16 अप्रैल 2015 तक का वक़्त दिया है।
अदालत ने ये कार्यवाही औद्योगिक विवाद क़ानून की धारा 11 (9)(10) के तहत दिया है। इन धाराओं को संसद ने 2010 में क़ानून का दर्ज़ा दिया था। इसके मुताबिक, हरेक अवार्ड को डिग्री मानने और उसके मुताबिक़ ही कार्यवाही करने का विधान बनाया गया। 2010 के इस नये क़ानून से पहले कर्मचारियों को इसी एक्ट की धारा 33 C(2) के मुताबिक़, अवार्ड पाने के बाद अपने दावे का निर्धारण करवाना होता था और उसके बाद जो डिक्री जारी होती थी, उसे सिविल प्रोसिज़र कोड (CPC) के तहत लागू करवाया जाता था। कुर्की-ज़ब्ती और गिरफ़्तारी वग़ैरह की कार्रवाई CPC के तहत ही होती है।
अब अदालत का वो हूबहू फ़ैसला, जो 52 साथियों के मामले में 12 मार्च 2015 को दिया गया है…
Ex36/14 (52 cases)
12.03.2015
Present: Sh. Vinod Kumar Pandey Ld counsel for the DH (Debit Holder).
None for JD (Judgement Debitor).
On the last date of hearing one counsel had appeared on behalf of JD. The submissions were heard on the objections of JD.
I have gone through the objections which have been filed by JD. In the objections there is a reference to an application filed U/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act for seeking computation/ determine of the amount recoverable in terms of the award passed in favour of the DH dated 12.5.04.
It is submitted by Ld counsel for DH that it is not a disputed fact. There was an application filed by the DH herein and other decree holders who have filed separate applications based on same Award that for the computation of the amount U/s 33(C) 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was considered necessary at that time because the amendment under Section 9, 10 & 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act had not come by that time making the award of the Labour Court executable like a decree. After the said amendment the workers can directly come to the Civil Court to get the award being executed as a decree. It is further pointed out that so far as the amount due is concerned in the objections filed there is no question raised in Ex36/14 the amount to be recovered as mentioned in execution proceedings is not correct.
It is submitted by the counsel for DH that in all 52 workers are involved those who have separately filed execution petitions. A request is made that the warrant of attachment be issued against the JD for the recovery of amount for attaching the property bearing no. 268, Masjid Moth, Uday Park, New Delhi 110 051.
It is submitted by the counsel for DH that there is an affidavit of the workman on record in support of the application. It would show that according to the workman the property referred above is the property of J/D M/s Business India Television International Limited.
I have not been able to get any assistance from the side of the JD on this score. I presume, therefore, that what has been stated on behalf of the DH is correct. Let warrants of attachment of the said immovable property bearing no. 268, Masjid Moth, Uday Park, New Delhi 110 051 be issued against the JD on filing of PF to appear in the Court on 16.4.15 to take notice of the date to be fixed for settlement the terms of proclamation of sale of the property. In the meanwhile the JDs are prohibited from Ex36/14 transferring or charging the said property in any way. The proclamation of this order be made at the property by beat of drums and by affixing copy of the order on a conspicuous part of the property and on some conspicuous part of the Court house. The warrant of attachment be issued on filing of PF and depositing the charges for proclamation by beat drums. The DH to appear before the Ld. ACJ for the appointment of Baliff on 26.3.15.
(L.K. GAUR)
ADJ/East District/
KKD Courts/Delhi
12.03.2015
Mukesh Kumar Singh
March 22, 2015 at 6:22 pm
पत्रकारों के शोषण के ख़िलाफ़ आवाज़ को बुलन्द करने के लिए यशवन्त जी को साधुवाद!
इसी ख़बर को पीटीआई ने कुछ यूँ जारी किया है। इससे बिज़नेस इंडिया समूह की काली करतूत हरेक प्रतिष्ठित मीडिया संस्थान के न्यूज़ रूप में औपचारिक और प्रमाणिक तरीक़े से पहुँच गयी। अब देखते हैं कितने अख़बार पीड़ित पत्रकारों की ख़बर को प्रकाशित करते हैं!
ZCZC
PRI ESPL LGL NAT
.NEWDEL LGD10
COURT-PROPERTY
Court orders attachment of property of media house
New Delhi, Mar 22 (PTI) A Delhi court has ordered attachment of property of a media house, which was shut down 15 years back, for failure to comply with its direction to pay wages to the firm’s 52 ex-workmen.
Additional District Judge G K Gaur directed attachment of property of Business India Television International Limited situated near Uday Park in south Delhi.
The court’s order came while deciding a petition filed by 52 former employees of the media house, which shut down in 2000, for not releasing the wages amount despite being ordered to do so way back in 2004.
“I have not been able to get any assistance from the side of the Judgment Debtors (company and its directories) on this score. I presume, therefore, that what has been stated on behalf of the Decree Holders (employees) is correct. Let warrants of attachment of the said immovable property bearing no. 286, Masjid Moth, Uday Park, New Delhi 110051 be issued against the Judgment Debtors…,” the judge said.
The employees in their separate execution petitions, filed through advocate Vinod Kumar Pandey, had made a strong plea to the court to issue warrant of property attachment against the firm for recovery of the amount.
It was alleged by the workmen that the management had locked out the premises with effect from February 10, 2000 and no employee was allowed to work.
On a complaint to labour authorities, the government had prohibited continuance of lock out with effect from February 14, 2000.
The matter was then referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Karkardooma Court for deciding the issue of wages.
The workmen said that they were not paid wages since February 2000 and alleged that since 1995 the management had adopted unfair labour practice against them.
The management, however, had said that there was no such Business India Group Employees Union and claimed that out of 378 persons, 217 had voluntarily left the services.
It claimed that the employees were not reporting for duty and also denied that it had declared lock out.
The court had in 2004 said that the management has failed to show any order overriding the government’s direction prohibiting the continuation of lock out.
“The order itself makes the continuation of the lock out illegal and unjustified. Consequently, keeping in view the order of the government prohibiting the continuation of lock out with effect from February 14, 2000, I am of the considered opinion that lock out is illegal and unjustified,” tribunal’s presiding officer had earlier said.
The tribunal had said 130 employees were entitled for wages from February 12, 2000 onwards. PTI SKV VMN
03221707
NNNN