UNI is Ours

UNI is Ours

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Meeting of The executive committee of the Union on Oct. 19, 2010

The meeting of the executive committee of the Union was held on Oct. 19, 2010. In the meeting committe  reviewed the overall situation in UNI, especially in the wake of resignation of General Manager A.K.Bhandari. 
The executive committee noted with great pains and regret that issues which directly affect the employees moral are being ignored and no serious efforts seems to be underway to solve their genuine problems.
The executive committee discussed all these matters at length and decided to forward a *Demand note* to Vice President and to the Chairman and members of the UNI Boards.
Demand Note
- Disbursement of the pending salaries at the earliest.
- Payment of one month pending salary as promised by the chairman.
- Clearing pending due/installments of LIC, Housing loans, Personnel loans etc.
- Implantation of interim relief as promised by the management.
- Clear the dues of employee’s thrift society.
- Clear the dues of LTA and casual encashment accumulated over the last three years.
- Clear all pending cases of time bound promotions at the earliest.

Letter to Vice President and Our Demands

To
The Vice President (Administration)
United News of India
9, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001

Dear Sir,
The executive committee of the Union in its meeting held on Oct. 19, 2010 reviewed the overall situation in UNI, especially in the wake of resignation of General Manager A. K. Bhandari. The meeting noted with satisfaction that you in capacity of Vice President (Adm.) handled the situation well and started spearheading the organization with experienced professional acumen.
We sincerely hope that UNI and its employees shall overcome the present difficult situation under your Administrative leadership.
The Union also appreciated that the chairman himself took an initiative to guide the UNI in this challenging atmosphere and immediately announced the editorial team which will be responsible for the overall news operations of the agency. But the executive committee noted with great pains and regret that issues which directly affect the employees moral are being ignored and no serious efforts seems to be underway to solve their genuine problems.
Though salary payments in the last three months appears to be stabilizing but no one can ignore this fact that salaries of last six months is pending resulting in huge crisis in the families of our employees. The chairman himself expressed his concern about this and while discussing VRS with the Union representatives he had assured that at least one month of pending salary will be disbursed soon and some of the other dues of the employees shall be cleared in a phased manner. At least two months have passed since then but we are still awaiting a response from the management side on these crucial issues.
The executive committee discussed all these matters at length and decided to forward a *Demand note* to you and to the Chairman and members of the UNI Boards through you, sir. We request you to sincerely consider the demands and take suitable actions as soon as possible. Fulfillment of these financial demands of our employees will help them to a great extent and it would also generate an atmosphere of peace in the institution which otherwise is likely to worsen if left unattended.

Yours truly,
(Mohanlal Joshi)
President

(Mukesh Kaushik)
General Secretary


PS: Demand note is attached.

Demand Note
- Disbursement of the pending salaries at the earliest.
- Payment of one month pending salary as promised by the chairman.
- Clearing pending due/installments of LIC, Housing loans, Personnel loans etc.
- Implantation of interim relief as promised by the management.
- Clear the dues of employee’s thrift society.
- Clear the dues of LTA and casual encashment accumulated over the last three years.
- Clear all pending cases of time bound promotions at the earliest.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

यूएनआई यूनियन चुनाव पर सुनवाई 25 तक स्थगित

यूएनआई वर्कर्स यूनियन के चुनाव को गैरकानूनी घोषित करने का अनुरोध करते हुए दायर की गई पूर्व महासचिव राजेश कुमार और अन्य के मामले में पटियाला हाउस की अदालत ने सुनवाई 25 सितम्बर तक के लिए स्थगित कर दी। यह मामला पूर्व महासचिव ने 20 अगस्त को दायर किया था और चुनाव प्रक्रिया पर रोक लगाने की मांग की थी। लेकिन अदालत ने चुनाव पर रोक लगाने के बजाए सुनवाई 23 अगस्त तय की थी।
इस बीच 21 अगस्त को यूनियन के नए पदाधिकारियों और कार्यकारी का चुनाव निर्विरोध सम्पन्न हो गया। मोहनलाल जोशी के नेतृत्व में नई यूनियन ने कार्यभार सम्भाल लिया। मुकेश कौशिक यूनियन के नए महासचिव बने। अदालत को इसकी जानकारी दे दी गई और यह अनुरोध किया गया कि चुनाव शांतिपूर्वक सम्पन्न होने के बाद इस मामले का कोई औचित्य नहीं रह गया है। यूनियन की नई टीम ऐसे समय गठित हुई है जब यूएनआई आर्थिक संकट के दौर से गुजर रही है और कर्मचारियों के वेतन भुगतान में देरी हो रही है। नई टीम से यूएनआई के कर्मचारियों की बड़ी अपेक्षाएं हैं।

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Mohanlal Joshi reply in court of law

THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. ARUN KUMAR ARYA, LD. ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:

RAJESH KUMAR & ORS PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
UNI WORKERS UNION DEFANDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ABOVE-NAMED REPONDENT/DEFANDANT NO.1

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:

1. That at the outset it is stated that all the facts which are stated in the plaint is wrong and specifically denied save those which are admitted by the defendant no.1 herein in his reply.

2. That it is stated that the plaintiffs has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. They have been concealed material facts and have this represented material facts and projected a incorrect case before this Hon'ble Court for their illegal personal gains.

3. That it is stated that the plaintiff no.1 was not discharging his duty in a lawful and proper manner and did not perform his duty in the interest of the employees and inclusion and connivance with some of the executive members tried to capture the union itself and further tried to extend their tenure by illegal and unjustified manner and did not act in accordance with the Constitution of the UNI workers union and there was unrest and dissatisfaction amongst all the employees against them.

4. That it is stated that the salary of the employees were not being paid by the management and their was salary due of more than six months of each employees and management by way of VRS scheme, terms and conditions which were very unjustified, unreasonable and arbitrary in nature and by way of this management tried to do away with the wage board employees but the plaintiff no.1 and some of the office bearer and executive members where not acting bonafidely for the cause of the employees and did not protect against the unjust and arbitrary acts of the management and were busy in own personal politics. The employees of UNI were very against of their acts and way of functioning and these persons were not listening to the grievances of the employees and were just trying to extend their tenure by illegal means and were not ready to hold the election for illegal personal benefits and so the employees in the validly called GBM for the purpose of discussing VRS issue and holding of election demanded in the GBM to hold election of the UNI worker Union on time and authorized the president of the defendant no.1 to take decision in this regard.

5. That it is stated that having understood the mood of the majority of employees and decision of GBM the plaintiffs and some others executive members tried to sabotage the democrative desire of the employees by taking illegal and unjustified decision in the executive meeting and thereby tried to over rule the decision taken by the GBM which is not permissible in law and hence the same were not according by the majority of employees.

6. That it is stated that the present civil suit as filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as the issue in question and relief as prayed by the plaintiffs has already become infructuous in view of this fact that the injunction sought for restraining the defendant nos 1 and 2 from holding the union elections on 26.08.2010 has already taken place and new set of office bearers for the year 2010-2011 are already elected unanimously on 21.08.2010 only. The new union has started working and is looking after the day to day affairs of the union and the employees.

7. That it is stated that the election process was lawfully called for vide notice dated 05.08.2010 by the defendant no.2 pursuant to the decision taken by the GBM held on 20.07.2010 to hold the election on time.

8. That it is stated that notice for holding election was already brought to the notice of one and all by way of pasting notice on notice board by defendant no.1 and the information regarding the same was given by the defendant no.1 to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, New Delhi by letter dated 05.08.2010. The defendant no.2 was appointed as returning officer to conduct the annual union election in a fresh and fair manner.

9. That it is stated that vide notice dated 05.08.2010 defendant no.2 had informed the employee regarding the holding of election for office bearers and executive members total 18 in numbers. It is further stated that by way of the second notice dated 06.08.2010 the defendant no.2 again informed by putting the notice on the notice board declaring that the election of the office bearers of the UNI Employee Union defendant no.1 will be held on 26.08.2010 at the UNI office premises and further stating that any candidate who is interested in contesting the election may contact the defendant no.2 for nomination form. It was further informed by way of this notice that the nomination form duly completed in all respect be submitted to the returning officer i.e. defendant no.2 from 14.08.2010 to 19.08.2010 and the last date of receiving nomination paper was declared to be as 19.08.2010 up to 3 PM. The scrutiny of the documents was to be held on 19.08.2010 up to 5 PM and the last date of withdrawal from the election was up to 21.08.2010 up to 5 PM and final list to be displayed on 21.08.2010 and the date of polling was declare to be on 26.08.2010 from 10 AM to 5 PM.

10. That it is stated that 30 employees filed their nomination papers before returning officer i.e. defendant no.2 and by way of the third notice dated 19.08.2010 the details of the candidate who filed the nomination paper for respective post of President, vice President and others were displaced on notice board. It is pertinent to mention here that the first leg of election process was legally completed upto 19.08.2010. Till that day there was no order whatsoever of any nature passed by any Hon’ble Court ordering to stop the election process and hence bonafidely in view of the decision taken by GBM dated 20.07.2010 which was called lawfully in accordance with the Constitution of the UNI worker’s Union, the election process was started and given effect to.

11. That it is stated that the plaintiffs filed the present civil suit which came up for hearing on 19.08.2010 and also on 20.08.2010 when this matter was heard by this Hon’ble Court on 20.08.2010 notice was issued of the present suit as well as application to the defendants for 23.08.2010 but no stay order was passed by this Hon’ble Court to stop the election process mid way. The plea of the plaintiff to pass as Ex-parte stay order was not granted by this hon’ble court in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant herein and hence there was no bar on the part of the defendants to hold the election and participate in election. Accordingly prior to the date of hearing i.e. 23.08.2010, in view of the fact that after withdrawal of many of the candidates from the relation…. only single candidate was left for all respective post for which election to be held and polling was to be done on 26.08.2010. The 18 candidates including the office bearer and executive members were elected unopposed for the year 2010-2011 on 21.08.2010 itself and there was no need to go for polling on 26.08.2010.

12. That it is stated that when the defendants appear before this Hon’ble Court on 23.08.2010 the civil suit had already become infractions as election process had taken its finality on 21.08.2010. Already 18 candidates were elected unopposed for UNI Employee Union election 2010-2011 and there was no need to go for polling on 26.08.2010 for electing the new office bearer and executive members.

13. That it is stated that the entire suit become infractuous on 21.08.2010 itself and the relief as prayed by the plaintiff in their application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and the permanent relief as prayed in the civil suit for present relief cannot granted as the election already had taken place and new office bearer have already assumed charge. Pursuant to their election, meeting of the executive committee has already taken place on 27.08.2010 in Union office, and GBM was called by new office bearer vide notice dated 27.08.2010. Copy of this was already sent to the management i.e. the defendant no. 3. Accordingly on 30.08.2010 at 2:30 PM as scheduled the GBM was held and attended by majority of person i.e. around 161 employees attended the GBM and welcomed the new office bearer and prior to the GBM and after the GBM the newly elected office bearer have taken over and are functioning and performing their duty as office bearer and executive members of the union in accordance to the constitution of UNI Worker Union. Nothing survives in the present suit and as the relief as prayed permanently and temporally cannot be granted so in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the present suit is liable to dismiss as an infractuous.

14. That it is stated that the present suit is not maintainable even otherwise as plaintiff no. 3 is no more in service of UNI Worker Union and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Plaintiff No.1 had no authority to file the present petition as General Secretary of UNI Worker Union as his continuations and claiming to be General Secretary of UNI Worker Union on the date of filing of present suit is itself improper, unjustified and bad in nature.

15. That it is stated that the present suit further not maintainable in view of this fact that there is no proper and valid authorization in favour of plaintiff no.1by the union and there is no documents on record that he was authorized and competent to file the present suit against the union itself and without proper valid authorization the filing of the present suit is bad in law and the same is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground itself.

16. That it is stated that the decision of the GBM is supreme and cannot be challenged when the decision was taken by the majority of employees and the calling of the GBM was in accordance of the law. When employees during the course of GBM had already decided and authorize the President and Vice President of the union to hold the election on time and so the same cannot be challenged until unless election process was in violation of the Constitution of Union. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case in hand the GBM on 20.07.2010 was called by the President who had power to call the same in accordance with the Constitution. The GBM was lawfully called and attended by the majority of employee, decision was taken not by any individual but by the GBM who authorized the defendant no.1 president and vice President to hold the election and only thereafter the entire election process get initiated by the defendant no.1 in accordance to the decision taken by the GBM 20.07.2010 in accordance with the Constitution. In this validly initiated. Election process each and every employee was given free, fair and equal opportunity to participate in election process and free fair election was conducted in accordance with law.

PARA-WISE REPLY:

1. That the contents of para no.1 of the present suit are partly wrong and partly correct. It is wrong and denied that the plaintiff No.1 is the General Secretary of the UNI Workers Union. It is correct that UNI Worker Union is a registered trade union under Trade Union’s Act having a constitution of which journalists as well as non-journalist employees working with the UNI.

2. That the contents of the para No.2 of the plaint is correct except this that the plaintiff No.3 is no more employed / working with UNI.

3. That the contents of the para No.3 of the plaint is misconceived, misrepresented, incorrect and hence the same are wrong and denied. It is stated that there was no occasion for the President of the defendant No.1 Union to accept the aid and advise of the General Secretary of the Union as well as the Executive Committee as the General Body Meeting attended by the majority of the workers had decided to hold election on time and had authorized the President and Vice-President of the defendant No.1 union to hold the election and take necessary action in this regard. It is wrong and denied that the defendant No.1 is being run by its President on its own in an arbitrary wrong, illegal and unfair manner and in collusion with the defendant No.4 and it is further wrong and denied that the plaintiffs represent the majority of the employees or that they are seriously aggrieved. It is pertinent to mention here that the majority of the employees have already endorsed the election of the newly elected union in the GBM held on 30.08.2010 and the falsity of the claim / statement of the plaintiffs is apparently clear by this fact itself.

4. That in response to the contents of the para No.4 it is stated that the President of the defendant No.1 union is competent and authorized as per the Constitution of the UNI workers union to call for a GBM and no authority of permission is required of any person in this regard. It is further stated that the calling of the GBM by the defendant No.1 President vide notice 19.07.2010 for GBM dated 20.07.2010 at UNI Lawns was in accordance with the constitution and the wish of the majority of the employees of the UNI and there was no requirement or necessity to consult the Executive Committee or General Secretary i.e. defendant No.1 or any of the plaintiffs to call for the GBM on 20.07.2010. The contention of the plaintiffs is completely misconceived, unjustified and against the provisions of the constitution.

5. That in response to the contents of the para No.5 of the plaint it is stated that the Executive Meeting was called by the plaintiffs on 03.08.2010 to Sabotage the over whelming desire and decision of the General Body Meeting taken on 20.07.2010. It is though correct that Executive Meeting was called by the plaintiff No.1 vide notice dated 02.08.2010 for 03.08.2010.

6. That though the contents of the para No.6 is a matter of record needs no reply. But it is stated that the alleged resolutions passed by the Executive Committee was illegal, unjustified, unreasonable and against the wishes of the majority of the employees and it was an attempt on the part of the Executive Committee and the plaintiffs to extend their tenure in an illegal and unjustified manner.

7. That in response to the contents of the para No.7 of the plaint it is stated that the appointment of the defendant No.2 as Returning Officer an announcement of holding of election vide notice dated 04.08.2010 was in accordance with the decision taken by the GBM on 20.07.2010 and there was nothing wrong and illegal about it. It is stated that there was no requirement for consulting the Executive Committee for holding of the elections or announcement of the defendant No.2 as Returning Officer as the decision of the GBM is supreme and binding upon the Executive Committee. It is stated that the holding of the Executive Committee meeting on 03.08.2010 itself was illegal and unjustified as the agenda in question which was to be discussed in the Executive Committee and the decision taken in the Executive Committee was an attempt on their part to circumvent and override the decision of the GBM which is void ab-initio as nobody can be above the decision of the GBM and the constitution.

8. That in response to the contents of the para No.8 of the plaint it is stated that the issue in question as stated in this paragraph had no relation whatsoever with the issue involved in the plaint. It is stated that the lady employee in question had made a false complaint with the management regarding a false incident at the behest of the plaintiff No.1 and others for their illegal personal gains and reply to the same was already submitted by the persons concerned. It is stated that nobody was roughed up on 23.07.2010 at 2:30 p.m. Rajesh Kumar, Virender Verma and others were never beaten up and they had filed a false complaint in this regard.

9. That in response to the contents of the para No.9 of the plaint it is stated that the issue in question as stated in this paragraph had no relation whatsoever with the issue involved in the plaint. It is stated that the lady employee in question had made a false complaint with the management regarding a false incident at the behest of the plaintiff No.1 and others for their illegal personal gains and reply to the same was already submitted by the persons concerned.

10 That in response to the contents of the para No.10 of the plaint it is stated that the issue in question as stated in this paragraph had no relation whatsoever with the issue involved in the plaint. It is stated that the lady employee in question had made a false complaint with the management regarding a false incident at the behest of the plaintiff No.1 and others for their illegal personal gains and reply to the same was already submitted by the persons concerned. It is stated that the apprehensions of the plaintiff No.1 were unfounded. The plaintiff No.1 by such act had only tried to delay the holding of union elections.

11. That the defendant No.1 relies upon the contents of the preliminary submission in response to the contents of the present para in hand, contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity of papers and the same may be read as part and parcel of the present reply.

12. That in response to the contents of the present para No.12 it is stated that the plaintiff No.1 had issued a notice dated 05.08.2010 the contents of which are matter record. That the defendant No.1 relies upon the contents of the preliminary submission in response to the contents of the present para in hand, contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity of papers and the same may be read as part and parcel of the present reply.

13. That the contents of the para No.13 is correct. It is stated that the announcement of the elections vide notice dated 05/06.08.2010 was in accordance with the decision of the Union.

14-15. That the contents of the para No.14 and 15 are wrong and denied. It is stated that the relief as prayed by the plaintiff has already become infructuous as elections have already taken place and new union have already been found. It is further stated that the acts of the defendant No.1 and 2 were inconformity of the constitution of the UNI worker union and all the decision and acts were justified and proper.

16. That the contents of the para No.16 being legal and needs no reply.

17. That the contents of the para No.17 being legal and needs no reply.

18. That the contents of the para No.18 being legal and needs no reply and it is further stated that the matter has already become infructuous.

19-20. That the contents of the para No.19 and 20 being legal and needs no reply and it is further stated that the matter has already become infructuous.

Prayer clause of the suit is also wrong, false, baseless and denied. It is further stated that the relief prayed cannot be granted as the suit itself is not maintainable in view of the facts as stated in the preliminary submission contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and avoid multiplicity of papers and the defendant herein rely upon the same in response to the prayer clause.

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the present suit as infructuous.





DEFENDANT NO.1

DELHI

THROUGH

DATED:07.09.2010



COUNSELS

THE CONSIGLIARE LAW OFFICES

1/14-B, LGF, JUNG PURA-A, NEW DELHI-110014

PH.NO. 011-24372882

E-mail tclo.india@gmail.com

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this 7th day of September, 2010 that the contents of the preliminary submission, contents of the para No.1 to 15 is true and correct to my knowledge and belief and records maintained by the defendant No.1 union and those of paras No.16 to 20 and reply to prayer clause is true and correct as per legal information received and last para is prayer to this Hon’ble Court.





DEFENDANT NO.1

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. ARUN KUMAR ARYA, LD. ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI



CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2010



IN THE MATTER OF:



RAJESH KUMAR & ORS PLAINTIFFS



VERSUS



UNI WORKERS UNION DEFANDANTS



AFFIDAVIT



I, M.L.Joshi, President of UNI Workers Union aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri Inder mani joshi, Registered office at 9, Rafi Marg, new Delhi-01 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am President of UNI workers Union in the above mentioned civil suit and as such fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That all the facts stated and contentions raised in the accompanying written statement in the present civil suit have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and I admit the same as true and correct and nothing material is concealed thereof and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which have not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the convenience of this Hon’ble Court.



DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this 7th day of September, 2010 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.



DEPONENT

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. ARUN KUMAR ARYA, LD. ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI



CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2010



IN THE MATTER OF:



RAJESH KUMAR & ORS PLAINTIFFS



VERSUS



UNI WORKERS UNION DEFANDANTS







REPLY TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE DEFANDANT NO.1.



MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That at the outset it is stated that all the facts which are stated in the application is wrong and specifically denied save those which are admitted by the defendant no.1 herein in his reply.

2. That it is stated that rather then being a parawise reply of the application in hand the defendant No.1 herein relies upon the contents of the W.S. as part and parcel of the reply to the entire contents of the present application in hand contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity of papers. The contents of the W.S. is reaffirmed and reiterated in response to the para No.1 to 10 of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC.

3. That it is stated that as already mentioned in detail in the written statement that the suit itself has become infructuous so in view of that the present application has also become infructuous and ad-interim ex-parte injunctions against the defendants regarding the notices in question and holding of election on 26.08.2010 cannot be granted as elections have already taken place and new officer bearers and executive members have started functioning.

Prayer clause of the application is also wrong, false, baseless and denied. It is further stated that the relief prayed cannot be granted as the application itself is not maintainable in view of the facts as stated in the written statement contents of which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity of papers and the defendant herein rely upon the same in response to the prayer clause.

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the application as infructuous.





DEFENDANT NO.1

DELHI

THROUGH

DATED:07.09.2010



COUNSELS

THE CONSIGLIARE LAW OFFICES

1/14-B, LGF, JUNG PURA-A, NEW DELHI-110014

PH.NO. 011-24372882

E-mail tclo.india@gmail.com

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SH. ARUN KUMAR ARYA, LD. ADJ, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI



CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2010



IN THE MATTER OF:



RAJESH KUMAR & ORS PLAINTIFFS



VERSUS



UNI WORKERS UNION DEFANDANTS



AFFIDAVIT



I, M.L.Joshi, President of UNI Workers Union aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri Inder mani joshi, Registered office at 9, Rafi Marg, new Delhi-01 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am President of UNI workers Union in the above mentioned civil suit and as such fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That all the facts stated and contentions raised in the accompanying reply to the application U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and I admit the same as true and correct and nothing material is concealed thereof and the contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which have not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and the convenience of this Hon’ble Court.



DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this 7th day of September, 2010 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.



DEPONENT

Friday, September 3, 2010

GBM letter Hindi

महाप्रबंधक


युनाइटेड न्यूज ऑफ इंडिया

9- रफी मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110001

महोदय,

यूनियन की पिछली कार्यकारिणी का कार्यकाल पूरा होने के बाद नव निर्वाचित कार्यकारिणी ने कार्यभार सम्भाल लिया है और हम परस्पर सुविधा अनुसार तय समय और तारीख पर नई टीम का यथाशीघ्र परिचय आपसे कराना चाहते हैं।



नई टीम ने 27 अगस्त को आयोजित अपनी बैठक में संस्थान की मौजूदा स्थिति का जायजा लिया और इस बात पर गंभीर चिंता प्रकट की कि वेतन के भुगतान में अब पांच महीने तक की देरी हो गई है। कभी 2007-08 में स्थिति यह थी कि वेतन भुगतान में कुछेक दिन की ही देरी हो रही थी लेकिन उसके बाद से स्थिति हर महीने बदतर होती चली गई। ऐसे में संस्थान में गलत प्राथमिकताओं और घटिया राजनीति के चलते वेतन के समय पर भुगतान का मुद्दा हाषिये पर धकेला जाता रहा और कर्मचारियों को फिजूल के विवादों में उलझाकर रखा गया। हम शुरू में ही यह स्पश्ट कर देना चाहते हैं कि वेतन के समय पर भुगतान का मुद्दा हमारे लिए सबसे ऊपर है और हम इस मामले में किसी प्रकार की देरी बर्दाष्त नहीं करेंगे। यदि कर्मचारियों ने संगठन के प्रति अपने फर्ज को पूरा करने में कोई कोताही नहीं बरती तो वे भी उम्मीद करते हैं कि प्रबंधन भी वेतन और अन्य भत्तों के समय पर भुगतान करने के अपने संवैधानिक दायित्व को निभाने में विफल नहीं होगा।



प्रबंधन ने पिछले महीने स्टाफ को कम करने के लिए स्वेच्छा से अवकाष लेने की योजना घोशित की। इस योजना में ऐसा कुछ भी नहीं था जो उन कर्मचारियों को आकर्शित कर पाता जो यूएनआई से अवकाष लेकर नया जीवन आरंभ करने के लिए उत्सुक भी थे। नतीजा यह हुआ कि देषभर में यूएनआई कर्मचारियों ने इसे खारिज कर दिया और प्रबंधन को इस योजना के वांछित परिणाम नहीं मिले। जिन तकरीबन पचास कर्मचारियों ने वीआरएस का रास्ता चुना है उन्हें योजना के तहत 31 अगस्त, 2010 को बकाया का कम से कम पचास प्रतिषत भुगतान होना है। हम यूएनआई के चेयरमैन द्वारा 7 जुलाई, 2010 को यूनियन के प्रतिनिधियों को दिया गया आष्वासन याद दिलाना चाहते हैं जिसमें उन्होंने कहा था कि जो कर्मंचारी वीआरएस का विकल्प नहीं चुनेंगे उनके बकाया के भुगतान के मामले में भी सकारात्मक सकारात्मक रुख अपनाया जाएगा।



यूनियन की मांग है कि संस्थान के मौजूदा कर्मचारियों के बकाया का भुगतान भी वीआरएस लेने वाले कर्मचारियों के भुगतान के साथ सुनिष्चित किया जाए। इसके अलावा यूनियन यह भी मांग कर रही है कि एक महीने के अतिरिक्त वेतन का भुगतान भी तुरंत किया जाए ताकि पांच महीने की देरी को नियंत्रित किया जा सके और कर्मचारियों को मुसीबतों से उबारा जा सके।



हमें पूरा विष्वास है कि यूएनआई को संकट से निकाला जा सकता है लेकिन इसके लिए प्रबंधन को इधर-उधर के भटकाव के बजाए स्थिति ठीक करने के लिए गंभीर और सघन प्रयास करने होंगे। यूएनआई आज ऐसे दोराहे पर खड़ी है जहां से उसे या तो रसातल में जाने के लिए छोड़ा जा सकता है या संगठन को तरक्की के मार्ग पर ले जाया जा सकता है। यूएनआई को प्रगति की ओर ले जाने के काम में कर्मचारी और यूनियन पूरा सहयोग करने को तैयार है। हमें इस ऐतिहासिक अवसर को लपकना होगा और उस गहरी नींद से जागना होगा जो हमारे संगठन के लिए घातक साबित हो रही है।





भवदीय





महासचिव अध्यक्ष

GBM demand-clear our dues, else face the music

The General Manager


United News of India,

9- Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001



Dear Sir,



After the expiry of the tenure of the last executive body of the Union, the newly elected team of the office bearers and executive members (list of election results is attached) has taken the charge and we wish to introduce the entire team to you on a mutually appointed time and date as soon as possible.



The new body of the Union, in its first meeting held on August, 27, 2010 took stock of the prevailing situation in the organization and expressed grave concern over the salary delays which has crossed five months mark now. The salary delays was of few days in 2007-08 and situation has gone bad to worse with each passing month in the last couple of years. Because of misplaced priorities and petty politics, the issue of salary payment has quietly been subsided and employees were entangled in various matters. We, at the outset want to make it clear to the management that we shall not tolerate any delay in the disbursement of the salary to the staff. Employees on their part have never failed in their duties towards the organization and they expect that the management shall not fail in its constitutional obligation of providing salaries and other dues to them on time.



The management on its part announced the voluntary retirement scheme last month to downsize the staff which was poorly crafted and offered nothing to the employees who may have opted to take rest and start their fresh inning of life. As a result it was by and large rejected by employees across all the centres and thus, it could not bring the desired results. The fifty odd employees who opted for VRS are to get at least half of their accumulated dues on August 31, 2010 as proposed in the scheme. In light of this we wish to remind you the assurance given by the Chairman of UNI to the Union representatives on July 7, 2010 meeting that the non-optees too, would be given due consideration for their payment of dues. Their dues too should be paid along with the payment to those employees who have opted to resign under the VRS. Additionally, we demand that one month extra salary be disbursed without any further delay so that situation could be brought under control and bring much needed respite to the employee.



We are very much confident that UNI can emerge stronger and the crises which is looming large can be resolved if sincere efforts are put on by the management without any further diversions. Employees in general and the Union in particular are ready to fully cooperate in this endeavor. UNI is on the verge of a turning point from where it can further go down or we all can take it to the path of progress. We should grab this historic opportunity and come out of the slumber that is proving fatal to our organization.





With regards





(Mukesh Kaushik) (Mohanlal Joshi)

General Secretary President

Monday, August 30, 2010

New Team of UNI UNION

मोहनलाल जोशी बने यूएनआई यूनियन अध्यक्ष


यूनाइटेड न्यूज आफ इंडिया (यूएनआई) के कर्मचारियों के संगठन यूएनआई वर्कर्स यूनियन की 2010-11 के लिये नई कार्यकारिणी के चुनाव में मोहन लाल जोशी अध्यक्ष के पद के लिये तथा एके बनर्जी उपाध्यक्ष पद के लिये निर्विरोध निर्वाचित हुए। मुकेश कौशिक महासचिव पद के लिए निर्विरोध चुने गए। यूनियन चुनाव के 21 अगस्त को घोषित परिणाम के अनुसार समरेन्द्र कांत पाठक, स्वराज सर्मा सचिव तथा बिशन सिंह नेगी कोषाध्यक्ष बने हैं। कार्यकारिणी के 12 सदस्य निर्विरोध निर्वाचित घोषित किये गये।
इन 12 सदस्यों में आरती कपूर के अलावा विनोद कुमार, मुकेश शर्मा, विक्रम सिंह सिंह बिष्ट, इमरान खान, मनोरंजन दास, उमेश धर द्विवेदी, अभिषेक कुमार, बिशंम्भर दत्त, अशोक कुमार गुप्ता, अशोक कुमार सिंह और मथुरा प्रसाद तिवारी निर्वाचित हुए हैं। चुनाव की प्रक्रिया पांच अगस्त को शुरू हुई। 19 अगस्त को नामांकन भरने की अंतिम तिथि थी। 19 को ही नामांकन पत्र की जांच की गयी तथा उम्मीदवारों की सूची को कार्यालय स्थित सभी नोटिस बोर्डों पर चिपकाया गया।
चुनाव 26 अगस्त को कराया जाना था। चुनाव के लिये कुल 30 नामांकन पत्र भरे गए थे और जांच के बाद सभी वैध पाये गए। नाम वापसी की अंतिम तिथि 21 अगस्त थी। नामांकन वापस लेने के बाद सभी पदों के लिए निर्विरोध चुनाव हुआ। इस चुनाव में राजेश कुमार के गुट ने भाग नहीं लिया। श्री राजेश कुमार पूर्व की कार्यकारिणी में महासचिव थे लेकिन वह चुनाव के लिये अनुकूल माहौल नहीं होने के आधार पर चुनाव टालना चाहते थे। उन्होंने चुनाव को अवैध घोषित कराने तथा चुनाव पर रोक लगाने के लिये पटियाला कोर्ट में याचिका दायर की थी लेकिन अदालत ने चुनाव पर रोक लगाने से इंकार कर दिया।