Brinda : பள்ளர் சாதியை சேர்ந்தவர் ஒருவர் தன் கீழ் வேலை செய்யும் இரண்டு அருந்ததியர் ஜாதியை சேர்ந்த துப்புரவு பணியாளர்களை வெறும் கைகளால், கழிப்பறையை சுத்தம் செய்ய வைத்த வழக்கில் தீர்ப்பு துப்புரவு பணியாளர்களுக்கு எதிராக வந்துள்ளது. (25000 ரூபாய் அபராதம் வேறு) Manual scavenging சட்டவிரோதமானது சொல்லிட்டே இப்படிப்பட்ட கேவலமான தீர்ப்பு எப்படி? விவரம் தெரிந்தவர்கள் சொல்லுங்கள் · ( from Facebook)
Sowmiya Narayanan :It is not about manual scavenging; it is about a person employed under the category of sweeper is what i saw. He has to do all the jobs fitting to his category of employment is what the judge said and dismissed his case and asked him to pay fine for wasting court's time
Brinda :How can a sweeper be asked to do manual scavenging work? Especially when it is illegal to employ one to do that work? Doesn't the judge know that?
Sowmiya Narayanan Contention was about making them wash inner clothes and not manual scavenging. Cleaning a western cistern with brush won't come under manual scavenging
Brinda: She was employed to work in the university not in this person's home, right? Cleaning with a brush is indeed manual scavenging!
Sowmiya Narayanan :Read the judgement Manage
Brinda :So you have the link?
Ganesh Kumar :திண்டுக்கல் ஆட்சியர், காவல் ஆணையர், முதல்வர் சித்ரா செல்வியின் புகார் இவற்றை மட்டுமே உள்வாங்கி வழங்கபட்ட தீர்ப்பு
Ganesh Kumar No automatic alt text available. 1
Ganesh Kumar தீர்ப்பு என்னிடம் இருக்கிறது அனுப்பி வைகிறேன்..
Brinda: நன்றி
Ganesh Kumar :See ur inbox
Sowmiya Narayanan :The lines highlighted by Mr. Ganesh is what i read elsewhere
Ganesh Kumar: I will send the full judgement comrade...
Sowmiya Narayanan :OK, thank you ..
Velu Saravanan: Judicial sale the judgement. This not new for in India
பாடகி தேனி இளமதி: சட்டம் வலியவனைக் கண்டால் வளைந்துகொடுக்கும். எளியவனைக்கண்டால் எட்டி உதைக்கும்____ தலைவர் திருமா
Velu Saravanan: Not only thiruma, already marx and Lenin said it. So only our leader Dr baba saib ambedkar said, poor got the power
Radhakrishnan Mayilvaganan :அவர் என்ன ஜாதி என்பதைவிட மேல் அதிகாரி எனும் ஆணவம் முன்னாடி வந்துருமே தோழர்.
Brinda ஆமாம். ஜாதியம் வெறும் பார்ப்பனர், இடைநிலை ஜாதியினர் பிரச்சனை இல்லைனு சுட்டி காட்ட சொன்னேன். 1
Radhakrishnan Mayilvaganan :எல்லா சாதியுமே தன்மேல் ஆதிக்கம் செலுத்தும் சாதியை எதிர்ப்பதும் தான் ஆதிக்கம் செலுத்த தனக்கு கீழே சாதிகள் வேண்டும் என விரும்புவதும் ஆகத்தான் உள்ளது. மதுரையில் ஒரு மாவட்ட ஆட்சியர் இலவச மனைப்பட்டாக்கள் வழங்கினார்.அது முழுக்க தலித்களுக்காக வழங்க முற்பட்டார். பயனாளியாக தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்ட எல்லோரும், 'அவர்களுக்கு கடைசியில் தான் தரவேண்டும்' என்று உறுதியாய் போராடினர். அந்த அவர்கள் குறவர்கள். அதற்கு காரணம் சொன்னது தான் இன்னும் வேடிக்கை. அவர்கள் சுத்தமில்லாமல் இருப்பார்கள், பன்றி வளர்ப்பர் என்றார்கள். இந்த சண்டையையே பயன்படுத்தி அடுத்து வந்த கலெக்டர் யாருக்கும் இல்லை என்று கைவிரிக்க, வேறு சாதியினர் அதை ஸ்வாகா செய்ய என்று தொடர்ந்தது. என்ன செய்ய நான் யாருக்கும் அடிமை இல்லை, ஆனால் நான் அடிமைபடுத்த ஆள்வேண்டும் என்பது கூறாக இருக்கிறது.இதுதான் சாதியத்தின் வெற்றிக்கு சூட்சுமாக உள்ளது.
Brinda :கொடுமை
https://barandbench.com/madras-high-courts-considered-opinion-scavenger-wash-toilets-clean-inner-clothes/ :The observations made by Madras High Court in a judgment rendered on January 10 has raised a storm.
In a petition filed by one Mahalakshmi, Justice T Raja’s observations as also the language/ nomenclature employed by him has brought the spotlight on “scavenging”.
Facts
The petitioner in the case, one
Mahalakshmi and her husband were working as sweepers in Anna University
College of Engineering at Dindigul (College).
Mahalakshmi had moved the Madras High
Court seeking enquiry and action against the Principal of the College,
Chitraselvi. Mahalakshmi had also prayed for regularizing her services
along with her husband’s with all service benefits.
The petitioner, who belongs to the Hindu
Schedule Caste community of Arunthathiyar, had submitted that
Chitraselvi compelled her to clean the toilets in her house and wash
clothes and even the inner dresses of her husband and children.
Mahalakshmi had also submitted that they were not given any safety
equipments when they were compelled to clean drainage and toilets and
the mandatory requirements under the provisions of the Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers and Rehabilitation Act, 2013 were not
adhered to. It was also her allegation Chitraselvi scolded her by
addressing her using her caste name.
The petitioner had narrated the above
ordeal in a representation sent on July 19, 2017 to the District
Collector, Dindigul as well as to the State Human Rights Commission, and
to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range and other
higher officials. However, it was her contention that instead of taking
action on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint, even the
Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, started harassing the petitioner and
her husband and threatened them to withdraw the complaint. Therefore,
she was advised to approach the High Court for the relief of a mandamus.
Submissions of the parties
The respondent Chitraselvi had rebutted
the allegations stating that the same were frivolous and deliberate
falsehood. It was Selvi’s argument that she belonged to the same
community as that of the petitioner and therefore, the question of using
her caste name did not arise.
“The learned
counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that when the sixth
respondent was also belonging to the same Scheduled Caste community, the
deliberate falsehood made by the petitioner that she was abused by the
sixth respondent using her caste name is highly unimaginary and a
motivated falsehood”.
Narrating a different version of the
story, Chitraselvi had contended that the petitioner’s allegations and
actions were blackmailing tactics for the purpose of regularization of
her service. In order to buttress her case, Selvi had also cited a
letter of apology by other sweepers working in the college in which they
had denied they were also blackmailed by the petitioner and her
husband.
Further, it was also the respondent’s
argument that the petitioner and her husband did not appear before the
police official for enquiry into the complaints.
“Their
deliberate absence from enquiry and the apology letter by the other
co-scavengers clearly proves that they are complaint-mongers and they
are not prepared to work, but they want to blackmail the respondents for
getting their regularization only”, the respondent had submitted.
Judgment
The Court, after considering the
submissions of the parties, and placing reliance on the apology letter
given by other sweepers and reports of various police officers,
concluded that the allegations of the petitioner are false and
frivolous.
“the apology
letter dated 15.7.2017 given by other co-workers also shows that the
petitioner had blackmailed the other co-workers stating that if they did
not cooperate with her, she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on
herself. This fact has been clearly spelt out by the Inspector of
Police of Oddanchatram circle in his report.
However, the
enquiry conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiarchatram Police
Station and one another enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Oddanchatram on the complaint given by the parties would
clearly show that both the petitioner and the sixth respondent are
belonging to the same community. Therefore, the allegations made by the
petitioner against the sixth respondent that she abused her by using the
caste name is nothing but a calculated falsehood.”
That the petitioner did not turn up for
enquiry was also held against her. The Court, therefore, directed that
the petition be dismissed while also observing that the Principal,
Chitraselvi is at liberty to initiate appropriate disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner.
“for the false
allegations made by the petitioner against the Principal of the fifth
respondent college, the Principal of the college is also at liberty to
initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against her, if deemed
fit, in accordance with law.”
The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for wasting the precious time of the court.
Observations on “scavenging”
However, what has raised many an
eyebrow, are the observations made by the court on what it considers as
falling within the scope of employment as “scavenger”. The Court has
stated that when the petitioner is serving as a daily rated employee/
scavenger, she has to clean toilets and wash clothes, “irrespective of whether it is inner cloth or out cloth”.
“In my
considered opinion, when the petitioner was serving as a daily rated
employee and her nature of work is to clean the premises including the
restroom and also to wash the clothes, it is not known how the
petitioner can exceptionally make a complaint that the sixth respondent
had compelled her to clean the toilets in her house and wash her dresses
and inner dresses of her husband.
When she is
employed as a Scavenger/Cleaner in the fifth respondent college and on
routine basis, she is also posted in her house, she has to clean the
toilets in the house and also wash her dresses irrespective of the fact
that whether it is her dresses or the inner dresses of her husband or
other members. It does not make any difference.
Similarly, when a
sweeper/scavenger is employed, he/she has to clean up the toilet also,
because she was appointed for washing the clothes of all the family
members for which she has been paid therefor. Hence, being a domestic
maid appointed as Sweeper and Cleaner, she has to wash all the clothes
irrespective of the clothes, whether it is inner cloth or outer cloth.”
The Court has further stated that a sweeper cannot complain that she cannot clean toilet and that is wholly unacceptable.
“Similarly, a
Sweeper cannot complain that she cannot be compelled to clean up the
toilet, therefore, making a complaint that the scavenger was compelled
to clean up the toilet, is wholly unacceptable.
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக