26.07.2015 - this small kid after he was got liberated from bondage by me. We found this kid's hands and legs tied up with a rope by her father and the kid was crying like anything. A clear case of human right violation.

26/07/2015 - interacting with a student

26/07/2015 - Helping Hand to a Poor

26.07.2015 - interacting with Riksha Pullers

SOCIAL JURIST REMINDS DELHI CM ARVIND KEJRIWAL OF HIS MAY-DAY PROMISE TO SEND THOSE EMPLOYERS TO JAIL WHO REFUSE MINIMUM WAGES

To

Shri Arvind Kejriwal,

Chief Minister of Delhi,

Secretariat, IP Estate,

New Delhi-110002

09.07.2015

Sub: Non Payment of statutory minimum wages to Workers by Sarna Bag Company (Gian International), G-7, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi Chowk, Delhi-110087

Dear Shri Arvind Ji,

By this letter, I am reminding you, the promises you and your Labour Minister Shri. Gopal Rai had publicly made on May Day this year that all employers not paying statutory minimum wages to their employees would be sent behind bars. I am sorry to say that till date, not even a single erring employer has been sent to jail for non-payment of statutory minimum wages. It is a well known fact that more than 85% of workers in the unorganised sector in Delhi are not paid wages as prescribed under the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Here is a case, where a worker Mr. Mustafeem Ahmed (M.9711907455), resident of 112, Ext. 2C, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 has given me a written complaint dated 3.07.2015, inter alia stating that he has been working with Sarna Bag Company (Gian International), G-7, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi Chowk, delhi-110087 as a Field Worker for the last 15 years continuously. His employer has been paying wages less than the prescribed rates but has been obtaining signatures against payment of full minimum wages.

 At present, the minimum prescribed rates of wages are Rs. 9048/- per month though he is being paid Rs. 7285/- per month. Since December 2014, he has been refusing to sign the register unless he is actually paid full minimum wages which he has not been paid till date. Moreover, the worker is being threatened of dire consequences by the employer if the workman would make any complaint against him (employer). He has also stated that about 70 workers have been working with the said employer and all of them are paid wages less than what is prescribed under the law though signatures are obtained showing full payment of minimum wages.

It is interesting to note that, though about 70 workers are working with the said employer, neither Provident fund benefits nor ESI benefits have been given to the workers. The said employer is guilty of violating all the labour laws.

It is therefore requested that as per your May Day promise, necessary action for prosecuting the afore mentioned employer under Minimum Wages Act and other Labour legislations be initiated at the earliest.

With regards

Ashok Agarwal, Advocate

Advisor, Social Jurist

M. 9811101923

Tel. 011-23070026 

कोर्ट के डंडे पर हो रहा गरीबों का मुफ्त इलाज

सुनवाई के दौरान याचिकाकर्ता की ओर से अधिवक्ता अशोक अग्रवाल ने हाईकोर्ट से कहा कि अदालत आने वाले मरीजों को निशुल्क इलाज मिल जाता है लेकिन हजारों मरीज ऐसे हैं जो अदालत नहीं आ पाते हैं जिससे उन्हें इलाज नहीं मिल पाता।

हिंदुस्तान (दिल्ली), 22.06.2015, page-4

A CASE OF MULTIPLE DISABILITY

As right pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no provision dealing with multiple disability in PWD Act, 1995. Here is a case in which the first respondent has blindness to an extent of 30% and 15% locomotor disability, which is definitely more than 40% prescribed in the statutory notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, as per the relevant provisions of PWD Act, 1995. Just because there is no provision for ‘multiple disability’ in PWD Act, 1995, is it right to deny the opportunity to the first respondent, is the question?

Let us assume that only one person having hearing impairment of 40% and above and one person having locomotor disability or cerebral palsy of 40% and above are found to be eligible. Then those two persons would be appointed. Let us assume that there is no person having blindness of low vision of 40% and above. If there is a person who has a blindness of 25% and hearing impairment of 15% such a person would be a person with multiple disability as per Section 2(h) of Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 i.e., Act, 44 of 1999 which has come into existence from 30.12.1999. The Subsequent Act i.e., Act 4 of 1999 is in addition to the existing benevolent welfare legislation i.e, PWD Act, 1995 and not in derogation of the same.

If a strict interpretation were to be adopted, a person having multiple disability with 25% low vision and 15% locomotor disability would not be considered for appointment under the reservation as per Section 33 and the same would go to a general category and not the definition of either of these two Acts under the hypothetical circumstance given above. This hard reality will also have to be kept in mind in order to give a liberal interpretation to the words ‘multiple disability’.

2015 LAB. I. C. 1626 (DB) Karnataka High Court (Decided on 27.10.2014)