A gesture of goodwill:The State government has made it clear that the plantation workers who had migrated to Manjolai from other places could not be termed traditional forest dwellers. | Photo Credit: A. SHAIKMOHIDEEN

Manjolai tea estate workers will be given tenements worth ₹14 lakh free of cost, Tamil Nadu govt. tells Madras High Court

Advocate-General P.S. Raman says it would primarily be the responsibility of BBTCL to provide a proper severance package to the workers. However, the government has decided to provide 150 TNHUDB tenements at Reddiarpatti near Tirunelveli city and 240 tenements at Manimuthar in Ambasamudram taluk

by · The Hindu

The Manjolai tea estate workers facing job loss in Tirunelveli district will be provided with 309 tenements, worth ₹14 lakh each, in the plains free of cost without even paying the allottee share of ₹3 lakh each, the Tamil Nadu government told the Madras High Court on Wednesday.

Appearing before Justices N. Sathish Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, Advocate-General P.S. Raman said the tea estates had been established on 3,388.78 hectares given on a 99-year lease by the erstwhile Singampatti Zamindar to Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited (BBTCL) in 1928.

Subsequently, on March 22, 1937, the Singampatti estate was notified as a forest under Sections 26 and 32 of the then Madras Forest Act, 1882. On August 2, 1962, areas forming part of the estate were notified as the Mundanthurai tiger sanctuary under the then Wild Birds and Animals (Protection) Act, 1912.

“Incidentally, this was the first notified tiger sanctuary in the country,” the A-G said and highlighted that the Wild Life (Protection) Act, in force now, was enacted only in 1972. On December 28, 2007, the government declared the areas which form part of the estate as a core critical tiger habitat by invoking the 1972 law.

Finally, on January 12, 2018, the areas were also notified as reserve forests leading to multiple court cases between the State and BBTCL. Though the company’s lease was to expire only on February 11, 2028, it decided to wind up its operations at Manjolai this year itself and announced a vountary retirement scheme.

Making it clear that the State had decided to convert the tea estates in Manjolai, Kakkaachi, Nalumukku, Oothu, and Kuthiraivetti (collectively known as Manjolai estates) into natural forests, the A-G said it would primarily be the responsibility of BBTCL to provide a proper severance package to the workers as per the labour laws.

Nevertheless, being a welfare State, the government decided to provide 150 Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (TNHUDB) tenements at Reddiarpatti near Tirunelveli city and 240 tenements at Manimuthar in Ambasamudram taluk under the Kalaignar Kanavu Illam and another urban habitat development scheme.

Stating that most of the tea estate workers belonged to the Scheduled Castes, the A-G said that they would also be given loans under the Annal Ambedkar Business Champions Scheme with 35% subsidy and 6% interest subvention for starting a business of their choice after skill development training.

The non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe workers would be given loans up to ₹75 lakh each under the New Entrepreneur-cum-Enterprise Development Scheme with 25% subsidy and 3% interest subvention, the A-G said. In addition, Aavin had also agreed to provide them loans for establishing dairy farms, he added.

Mr. Raman, however, said the tea plantation workers who had migrated to Manjolai from other places could not be termed traditional forest dwellers and consequently, would not be entitled to any benefit under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

Senior counsel Srinath Sridevan, representing BBTCL, said the company had decided to make a premature exit from Manjolai even before the expiry of its lease period because of multiple disputes that had arisen between it and the State ever since the areas were declared reserve forests.

Stating that the labourers saw the writing on the wall and opted for voluntary retirement, he said the company had also paid a handsome compensation to the workers. One of the writ petitioners, K. Krishnasamy of the Puthiya Tamilagam, refuted the claim and contended that the workers took retirement due to coercion.

After hearing the oral arguments advanced by all the parties before the court, the judges granted time till November 11 for submission of written arguments, if any.

Published - November 06, 2024 09:58 pm IST