Lathicharge On Honda Workers 2005 PDF

Lathicharge on the HMSI Workers on
July 25, 2005 in Gurgaon
A Citizens Committee Enquiry Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We acknowledge all the fact finding team members: R.A. Mital, Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha
(HMS); Suneet Chopra, Joint Secretary, All India Agricultural Workers Union (AIAWU); J. John, Editor,
Labour File, Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU); Sukumar
Murlidharan, Freelance Journalist; Ashish Mittal, Occupational Health and Safety management
Consultancy Services; Anannya Bhattacharjee, Jobs with Justice and Ashok Choudhary, New Trade
Union Initiative (NTUI) for their the support in conducting the fact finding exercise.
We are also indebted to the union leaders and workers of HMSI; Rajendra Pathak, advocate; Mathew
Abraham, General Secretary, Maruti Udyog Employees Union and D.L. Sachdev, Secretary, AITUC
for their help during the fact finding visit and for providing insight into the labour conditions prevailing
in HMSI.
Last but not the least we acknowledge the contribution of Centre for Education and Communication,
particularly: Swapnil Srivastava, Programme officer, Emergency and Extension Services, Krishna
Shekhal Lal Das, Programme officer, Migrant and Contract Labour and Rinju Rasaily, Programme
Officer, Trade and Labour Rights I.
Labour File
and
National Campaign on Labour Rights
Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5
JAPAN AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS IN INDIA .................................................. 7
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES .................................... 10
GURGAONS GROWTH AS AN INDUSTRIAL TOWN ........................................................ 13
SOME FACTS ABOUT HMSI ............................................................................................... 15
BACKGROUND TO THE INCIDENT ON JULY 25, 2005..................................................... 17
THE INCIDENT ON JULY 25, 2005 ...................................................................................... 22
FINAL SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................... 29
WHO IS THE GUILTY? ......................................................................................................... 32
MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 34
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 35
APPENDIX I .......................................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX 2 ......................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX 3 ......................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX 4 ......................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX 5 ......................................................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX 6 ......................................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX 7 ......................................................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX 8 ......................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX 9 ......................................................................................................................... 54
3
APPENDIX 10 ....................................................................................................................... 57
APPENDIX 11 ....................................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX 12 ....................................................................................................................... 61
Introduction
The brutal police lathi charge on the Honda workers in Gurgaon on July 25, 2005 will definitely go
down as a major assault on workers rights in India. That day nearly 2,000 peaceful workers were
assaulted by the Haryana police. This brutal assault was telecast through the electronic media
throughout the country. Hundreds of workers were cornered by the police from all sides near the Mini
Secretariat in an area that was walled in, with few routes of escape, here they were brutally beaten.
The whole chain of events that unfolded that day appeared prima facie to indicate that the Haryana
administration was sympathetic to the HMSI management and did not care about the interests of the
workers. The ghastly incident called for the urgent need to initiate an immediate and independent
enquiry so that the truth could be established.
Labour File and National Campaign on Labour Rights initiated a process of constituting a team of
concerned citizens and decided to conduct a fact-finding visit on July 27, 2005 to Gurgaon to probe
into the incident.
Members of the team
R.A. Mital, Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS); Suneet Chopra, Joint Secretary, All India
Agricultural Workers Union (AIAWU); J. John, Editor, Labour File; Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Professor,
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU); Sukumar Murlidharan, Freelance Journalist; Ashish Mittal,
Occupational Health and Safety management Consultancy Services; Anannya Bhattacharjee, Jobs
with Justice; Ashok Choudhary, New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI);Sindhu Menon, Special
Correspondent, Labour File and Pallavi Mansingh, National Campaign on Labour Rights (NCLR).
Sources Investigated
The fact-finding team visited the mini secretariat, Office
of the labour counsellor, Office of the DLC and the
Government Civil Hospital. The team also met the leader
of the former Maruti Workers Union, victims, families of
the victims and workers who were working at the Honda
factory when the incident took place.
A delegation of the Fact Finding Team met the Labour
cum Conciliation Officer Mr. S.K. Gupta on August 17,
2005 and the District Commissioner Mr. Bharadwaj on
August 18, 2005.
Civil Hospital, Guragon
However, the Fact Finding Team could not meet the management to get their perspective despite
repeated requests for appointment.
Terms of References
o
To document the working conditions and the different types of labour rights (fair labour
practices, health and safety, etc.), and civil rights violations against workers, by the Honda
management, both during the retrenchment and the demonstrations as well as prior to the
retrenchment
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
To document civil rights violations against the demonstrators (workers and general public,
media and witnesses) by the administration and the police.
To investigate the factors that lead to the civil rights violations and to establish
responsibilities of the Honda management, Haryana government, and central government
during and immediately after the violence in Gurgaon.
To find out the services provided by the hospitals, and the general role played by the
hospital management and its workers.
To document the cooperation (or the lack thereof) provided to the families of the workers
by the police and the hospitals.
To find out the conditions and terms under which workers inside the factory worked
especially those whose categories most resemble the workers outside -- during the
retrenchment, the demonstrations and in the aftermath.
To investigate the managements role and position vis--vis the workers issues, the
retrenchment and the ensuing violence.
To inquire from the local, state and central governmental lines of authority what the future
plans are for investigation and accountability measures.
To recommend further investigations and steps that workers and their supporters can
undertake.
The fact-finding has investigated the incident that happened on July 25 in detail. But before placing
them in proper context, it proposes to look into the larger framework of Japanese pattern of foreign
direct investments (FDIs) in India and the changing government policies, which together ultimately
created such a lop sided environment that led to the incident of what is now termed Black Monday.
The report also looks into the dynamics of industrial growth in Haryana, which shows that the state
government wanted to present Gurgaon as a destination point for foreign direct investment (FDI). To
emerge as a successful contender to lure FDIs government of Haryana offered a better investment
climate. This besides providing better infrastructure also meant liberal labour policies, with little
interference from the government and even providing state protection to the foreign companies in
cases of exigencies.
Japan and Foreign Direct Investments in India

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) benchmark,
foreign direct investment reflects the objective of attaining a lasting interest by a resident entity in one
economy (direct investor) in an entity resident in an economy other than that of the investor (direct
investment enterprise). The lasting interest implies the existence of a long-term relationship between
the direct investor and the enterprise and a significant degree of influence on the management of the
enterprise. Direct investment involves both the initial transactions between the two entities and all
subsequent capital transactions between them and among affiliated enterprises, both incorporated
and unincorporated.1
Postliberalisation in the Indian context, have created huge markets for foreign investors. According
to Government of India report, Japan ranks 3rd (7.33%) among the foreign investing countries in India
with Mauritius ranking the 1st (34.49%) followed by the USA with 17.08% respectively (refer Annexure
No. III).
The Government of India has created a liberal FDI policy to an extent of 100% for certain sectors for
example printing scientific and technical magazines, periodicals and journals; petroleum product
marketing/oil exploration in both small and medium sized fields, all subject to certain policies and
frameworks.2 Sectorwise FDI inflows from Aug 91 until Nov 04, indicate that the highest share of
FDI inflows have gone to data-processing software and consumer-services, followed by
pharmaceuticals and automobile industry.3
According to the Auto Policy (Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, GOI), March 2002,
automatic approval for foreign equity investment upto 100% manufacture of automobiles and
components is permitted.4
Mr. Kamal Nath, Commerce and Industry Minister, stated that India and Japan could easily reach twoway trade of USD 10 billion within three years. Japan current FDI stock in India is only USD 2 billion,
(with 265 Japanese firms investment) as compared to USD 50 billion in South-east Asia and USD 40
billion in China.5 Recently Government of India (GOI) has permitted FDI in real estate and
construction sectors for Japanese firms.6
According to PHDCCI figures, between 2002-2004, against cumulative foreign approvals of $15 billion
actual foreign investments were close to $ 33 billion in India.7
The Japanese External Trade Organisations (JETRO) survey of Investment Related Cost
Comparison in Major Cities and Regions of Asia stated that Japanese companies seeking
inexpensive labour select their investment destinations mainly from cities where the monthly wages of
workers is US $ 100 to US $ 200 (Bangkok, Jakarta, Manila, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, New Delhi,
Bangalore and Karachi).8
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/16/2090148.pdf
http://indiabudget.nic.in
3 ibid.
4 http://dhi.nic.in/autopolicy.htm
5 Indo-Japan Trade: Potential for Strengthening Ties, Cargo Times, May 2005, pp26-27.
6 See Annexure No IV (Press Information Bureau, GOI, March 16th 2005).
7The Economic Times, 23rd May 05.
8The 15th Survey of Investment Related Cost Comparison in Major Cities and Regions of Asia, March 2005, Overseas Research
Department, Japanese External Trade Organisation (JETRO): p 1.
1
2
In India, according to the Haryana Investment Guide, the State of Haryana provides excellent law and
order situation and harmonious labour relations for conducive foreign investment environment. With
a view to boost exports and facilitate foreign direct investment, the state Government is setting up a
Special Economic Zone on 3000 acres of land in Garhi Harsaru in Gurgaon district. 9 Haryana ranks
7th (excluding state not indicated) next only to Andhra Pradesh in terms of foreign direct investment in
different states in India.10
The industrial areas/estates in Haryana are developed by the Haryana State Industrial Development
Cooperation (HSIDC) or by HSIDC with joint venture with private sector or by the private sector alone.
In Haryana only 9.5% of the areas are under Controlled and Urban Areas i.e. 90% of the remaining
area do not come under control of the Acts as per the Government Rules.
Under the estate Export Policy, the main export products are motor cars, two wheelers, bicycles, autoparts, chemicals and allied products, electrical and electronic goods. More that 600 units in the state
are engaged in the export of products to more that 70 countries. Special Economic Zones is being set
up in Gurgaon to provide facilities to exporters whereby import and exports will be free of all taxes and
regulations with unrestricted movement of goods.11 Various other incentives and concessions for
exporting units for example preference in the allotment of plots, power connect, Export Promotion and
Transport Assistance Scheme are given to foreign investments.
Mega Projects in Haryana with investments of Rs 30 crores and above are offered customised
package of incentives by a committee constituted under Industrial Policy 1999.12 Honda Motorcycle
and Scooter India (Pvt) Ltd (HMSI) signed a memorandum of understanding with Haryana State
Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) for setting up its 'state-of-the art two-wheeler facility in
Manesar, Gurgaon that was approved by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) in August
2000.
Honda Motorcycles and Scooter India (Pvt.) Ltd. (HMSI)
Honda Motorcycles and Scooter India (Pvt.) Ltd. (HMSI) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Honda Motor
Company Ltd., Japan, is one of the worlds largest manufacturer of two-wheelers. Honda Motor
Company, Japan has its headquarters in Tokyo, has manufacturing operations in 32 countries with
109 production bases. It has three business divisions, namely 2-wheelers, 4-wheelers and Power
Products. Apart from HMSI that manufactures 2-wheelers, other business divisions include Honda
Siel Cars India Ltd. (HSCI) and Honda Siel Power Ltd. (HSPL).
HMSIs factory was completed in the year 2001 January. It is situated in Manesar, in Gurgaon district
of Haryana, spread over an area of 27 acres.
Haryana Investment Guide 2004-2005, PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi
See Appendix No. I
11 ibid: pp 38
12 ibid: pp 40
9
10
Aerial View of Factory at Manesar
The initial investment was of Rs 300 crores with a capacity of 200,000 scooters per year and is
expected to reach 6,00,000 scooters in the year 2005. Some of its in-house facilities are Gravity Die
Casting, Welding Robot, Paint Shop Robot, Engine and Frame Assembly. Mr. Haruo Takiguchi, is the
President and CEO of HMSI. There are 2000 associates under HMSI.13 HMSI, according to The
Hindu Business (14th Aug 04) posted a 53.5 per cent jump at 38,104 units while Bajaj Auto's sales
dipped by 26.5 per cent to 13,902 units.14
Interestingly, Hondas philosophy is based on two fundamental beliefs: respect for individual that
includes initiative, equality and trust and The Three Joys: buying, selling and manufacturing. With
increasing liberalisation and foreign direct investments in India, the increasing amount of concessions
and incentives given by the host states, companies from country such as Japan are flouting labour
laws, following a hire and fire policy that resulted in the most gruesome and shocking violations of
workers fundamental rights in Manesar, Gurgaon.
Most of the bodies that represent industrial companies (American Chamber of Commerce in India,
ASSOCHAM, PHDCCI) said that the incident in Gurgaon would not affect the investments made by
overseas companies in India, while, the Japanese ambassador to India, said that the incident could
have an adverse impact on FDI inflow and would show the Japanese management in a negative
light.
13
14
http://world.honda.com/news/2004
www.thehindubusinessline.com, August 14, 2004
Background Information On Automobile Industries
Current status of Indian Automotive Industry

Automobile sector consist of commercial vehicles, multi-utility vehicles, passenger cars, two wheelers,
three wheelers, tractors and auto components. According to the Ministry of Heavy Industry,
Government of India there are 15 manufacturers of cars and multi utility vehicles, 9 of commercial
vehicles, 14 of Two/Three Wheelers and 10 of Tractors besides 5 of engines. With an investment of
Rs.50,000 crores, the turnover was Rs. 59,500 crores in Automotive Sector during 1999-2000. It
employs 4,50,000 people directly and 100,00,000 people indirectly15.
According to the official sources, India manufactures about 38,00,000 2-wheelers, 5,70,000
passenger cars, 1,25,000 Multi Utility Vehicles, 1,70,000 Commercial Vehicles and 2,60,000 tractors
annually. India ranks second in the production of two wheelers and fifth in commercial vehicles16.
Indias automotive component industry manufactures the entire range of parts required by the
domestic automobile industry and currently employ about 250,000 persons17. Auto component
manufacturers supply to two kinds of buyers original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and the
replacement market. The replacement market is characterised by the presence of several small-scale
suppliers who score over the organised players in terms of excise duty exemptions and lower
overheads. The demand from the OEM market, on the other hand, is dependent on the demand for
new vehicles.
The auto sector (excluding Tractors) attained a steep cumulative annual growth of 22 per cent
between 1992 and 1997. The Tractors achieved a cumulative annual growth of 16%. Component
production grew by 28 per cent.
The Policy statement of 2002 also declare that roads occupy an eminent position in transportation as
they, as per the present estimate, carry nearly 65 per cent of freight and 87 per cent of passenger
traffic. Although, India has 3.3 million kilometers of road network, which is the second largest in the
world, the Indian highways are getting overpopulated.
Auto policy 2002 state that the automotive industry is in the midst of a major structural transformation
in todays globalised scenario. System Supply of integrated components and sub-systems is
becoming the order of the day, with individual small components being supplied to the system
integrators instead of the vehicle manufacturers. In this process, most of the SSI units manufacturing
smaller individual components are on their way to become tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers, while the larger
companies including most MNCs are being transformed into tier 1 companies, which purchase from
tier 2 & 3, and sell to the auto manufacturers18.
Policy Scenario And Evolution Of Auto Industry
15
Government of India, Ministry of Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry, New Delhi, March
2002
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
18
Supply chain tier means auto component are being send to another production and assembling units- tier 2, who assemble
and fabricate the particular component and send back to parent company. If the tier 2 further send to another production and
assembling center for processing the work, which come as tier 3. This is called system of supply chain in the
manufacturing sector.
10
It was in 1898 that the first motorcar rode down Indias roads. From then till the First World War, about
4,000 cars were directly imported to India from foreign manufacturers. The growing demand for these
cars established the inherent requirements of the Indian market that these merchants were quick to
pounce upon. The Hindustan Motors HM) was set up in 1942 and in 1944, Premier Automobile (PAL)
was established to manufacture automobiles in India. However, it was PAL who produced the first car
in India in 1946, as HM concentrated on auto components and could produce their first car only in
1949. It was left to another company, Mahindra and Mahindra (M&M) to manufacture sturdier utility
vehicles, namely the American Jeep.
In 1953, the Government of India took the policy decision that only those firms which have a
manufacturing programme should be allowed to operate and in 1955 the Government of India granted
approval to only 7 car dealers to operate in India Hindustan Motor (HM), API, Ashok Leyland (ALL),
Standard Motor Products of India Limited (SMPIL), Premier Automobile Limited (PAL), Mahindra and
Mahindra (M&M) and Tata Engineering and locomotive Company (TELCO). The regulating
environment continued to remain in place. The 60s witnessed the establishment of the two-three
wheeler industry in India. During the period of 1970 - 1980 not much change was witnessed. The
major factors for keeping strict control over industries were the implementation of the MRTP Act
(Monopolies and Trade Restrictive Practices Act), FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) and the
Oil Shock of 1973 and 1979.
Since the 80s, the Indian car Industry has seen a major resurgence with the opening up of Indian
shores to foreign manufacturers and collaborators. As during the period of 1980 - 1990 - the first
phase of liberalization was announced by the Government With the liberalization of the Governments
projectionist policies, the advantages hitherto enjoyed by the Indian car manufacturers like monopoly,
oligopoly, slowly began to disappear. This period is also marked by the entry of a large number of
firms in the market. Four Japanese manufacturers entered the Commercial Vehicle and Two- Wheeler
market.
During this period the industry witnessed a resurgence due to major policy changes like relaxation in
MRTP and FERA, delicensing of some ancillary products, broad banding of the products and
modification in the licensing policy. Also, it gave concessions to the private sector and the new foreign
collaboration. Protection was reduced, as a result of broader policies for trade and investment
liberalization adopted in the early 1980s, and the Government of India tied up with Suzuki Inc. of
Japan which produced Indias most successful car- the Maruti.
In the 1990s the development of auto industry policy was complex. The major liberalization policies
were directed not at foreign trade, but at dismantling the system of controls over investment and
production. Transnational companies were allowed to invest in the assembly sector for the first time,
and car production was no longer constrained by the licensing system. However, quantitative
restrictions on built-up vehicles remained, and foreign assemblers were allowed to meet local content
requirements and export targets agreed with the government. After the lifting of licensing in 1993, 17
new ventures have come up of which 16 are for manufacture of cars. This industry currently accounts
for nearly 4 per cent of the GNP and 17 per cent of the indirect tax revenue.
The new policy regimes and rapid growth in car sales led to inflows of FDI by the mid-1990s.
Similarly, investment liberalization and a potentially large domestic market attracted many new
entrants to the Indian market. By the end of 1997, Daewoo, Ford, General Motors, and Mercedes had
begun assembly operations. Further plants were constructed and new product and models by Fiat,
Ford, Honda, Hyundai, TELCO, Daewoo, etc. were launched such as Millennium Matiz, Toyota
Qualis, Opel Corsa, Maruti Baleno, Maruti Wagon R, Indica and many more.
The experience of decade long liberalization in automobile sector as well as the compulsion and
commitment to the WTO forced government of India to leberalise further with the aim of attracting
11
more FDI. In the 2002 Auto Policy statement, government of India stated a need for a comprehensive
automotive policy making it more investor friendly and compatible to WTO norms. In this Policy
(petroleum.nic.in/annex38.pdf)19 Government of India declared its vision to establish a globally
competitive automotive industry in India and double its contribution to the economy by 2010.
The main objective of this policy is to promote integrated, phased, enduring and self-sustained growth
of the Indian automotive industry.
The secondary objectives are to: Promote a globally competitive automotive industry and emerge as a global source for auto
components.
Establish an international hub for manufacturing small, affordable passenger cars and a key center for
manufacturing Tractors and Two-wheelers in the world.
Exalt the sector as a lever of industrial growth and employment and to achieve a high degree of value
addition in the country.
Ensure a balanced transition to open trade at a minimal risk to the Indian economy and local industry.
Management Practices And Industrial Relations
In the area of industrial relations and management practices basic approaches to employment
relations based on large-scale employment in manufacturing, a stable public sector and a strong trade
union movement are no longer thought valid due to globalisation of product markets, technological
changes, increased competition and greater division of labour on an international scale20. This
thinking stresses flexibility by downsizing workers, extensive use of contract labour, and lean
management system within the framework of a neo liberal economic policy. This thinking does not
consider the rights of employees as well as existing legal provisions and safeguard in the host
countries. What happened in Maruti Suzuki earlier and recently in HMSI is the reflection of this
notion.
Influenced by the new management thinking companies in India adopt anti labour practices. Almost
Asian TNCs in India employ contract and casual labour in a major way for their regular activities. Most
of the workers are recruited as either trainees or apprentices for longer periods in some cases 8 10
years with very low wages and are never confirmed in their employment (only 1or 2 percent of them
are regularised). They use periodic breaks in providing employment for individual contracts and
casual workers thereby denying the benefits of permanent employment. Demand for labour rights and
formation of unions therefore is actively discouraged through threats and victimization. In recent years
there have been struggles by employees unions in Maruti - Suzuki, Honda Seal and just recently in
Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India (HMSI) in which unionists and agitating workers were dismissed
and struggles were suppressed. Even if unions exist these TNCs do not recognize them. Settlement
of disputes with workers is preferred through individual negotiation rather than through the union.
Normally according to available information from the trade unions, individual workers, government
officials who spoke to us off the record, and the local media, the foreign companies management do
not respect the labour and environmental rights of workers or health and safety norms.
19
Government of India, Ministry of Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry, New Delhi, March
2002
20
Universal Wisdom Through Global Globalisation, a Presidential address to the 12th World Congress of the
International Industrial Relations Association, Tokyo, May, 2000 by Tadashi Hanami.
(www.jil.go.jp/bulletin/year2000/vol39-09/09.htm)
12
Gurgaons Growth as an Industrial Town

Gurgaon was a town of little consequence for Haryana a little more than a decade ago. But with the
dawning of liberalization era in the 1990s, politicians of Haryana could foresee the possibility of
Gurgaon becoming a Golden Goose. The reasons were easy to understand, its proximity to Delhi and
the international airport, vast availability of land at comparatively cheap prices, and the pressure being
exerted on Delhi industries to either close down or shift out by the green lobby and property dealers,
as well as by the courts worried about rising pollution levels in Delhi.
The post liberalization period saw scores of foreign companies choose Gurgaon as the place to set up
their plants. By the beginning of the new millennium, Gurgaon from a lesser-known town had
transformed into a robust city giving a run for money to the adjacent capital. Due to its predominantly
rural character it juxtaposed two extremes on one hand glittering skyscrapers, swanky malls, state
of art factories and penthouses and on the other shanty bastis of old Gurgaon town.
To maintain Gurgaons numero uno position in FDI investments, Haryana government kept doling out
largesse to the foreign companies. It kept no checks on its labour department and allowed factories
and plants to indulge in gross violations of labour laws for maximising profits. Huge pendency of
cases with the labour department is a testimony to the fact that workers of Haryana had no avenue
available for redressing their problems and the foreign managements were having a field day.
Here are a few instances that clearly prove how the management of some big players based in
Haryana in tandem with the police and the administration has quashed labour movements fighting for
their rights and what remains are pending cases:
1) Pashupati Mills, Kapriwas, Rewari, Haryana: In February 1998 workers demanded a 20 per
cent bonus from the management. The management refused. As a response the workers
slowed down production in the factory for a day. This aggravated the tensions between
workers and the management and resulted in a clash. According to the workers, the
management called the police that day falsely accusing the workers of disrupting law and
order. The police hit the workers brutally even dragged some of them out of their houses to
beat them. Four workers were killed in the incident and almost 25-30 injured. An Inquiry
Commission headed by Justice M.L. Kaul investigated into the incident and held the
Management and the Administration - the DC of Rewari, SSP of Rewari and the DLC of
Gurgaon guilty in the incident. It ordered a compensation package of 2 lakhs to the families of
the deceased and a job to one member from the family of the deceased. Following this
incident, in the month of April the same year, the President of the Union in Pashupati Mills,
Ram Avtar was murdered. The police was able to arrest the murderer, who confessed that he
had been commissioned by the owner of the Pashupati Mills to do the murder. The owner was
however not punished as he was acquitted by the high court.
2) Hero Honda, Dharuhera, Rewari, Haryana: The factory in Rewari started in 1986. In 1987 a
union was formed. Since then, the management has been victimising workers who associate
with the union. In 1988 eight workers were directly dismissed for indulging in disruptive
activities, without any inquiry, warning or show cause notice. It was clearly a tactics to break
the union. Then same year the President of the union Harpal Singh Banga was falsely
accused of a long absence, and his services were terminated. In 1989 20-25 workers were
dismissed again without any inquiry. The Punjab Haryana High Court rejected their reference.
In 1997 once again the president of the union, Sri Bhagwan was falsely accused of producing
fake experience certificates and dismissed. His case is pending in the Gurgaon labour Court.
Then in 1998 the management promised to give the workers ceiling fans on Diwali. However,
13
they gave the workers blankets. Workers refused to take this. They boycotted the canteen.
The president of the Union, Rajbir Chail was dismissed. His case is also still pending in the
court. Finally the workers were forced to accept the blankets as there was only a verbal
assurance of ceiling fans.
3) Orient Craft, Gurgaon, Haryana: in 2001 the workers were trying to form a union. One day the
union leader who was working in the sampling department resisted against overtime. He was
stabbed by a person from the staff. The management called the police. The result was a clash.
About 10-12 people were injured in this incident. False cases were filed against 50 60
workers. Out of these 15 were women. They were also kept under judicial custody for 15 days.
Besides this the Orient Craft also has over 70 cases of termination pending in the court. Since
this incident the company has been hiring workforce through labour contractors.
4) Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana: The workers of MUL went on a peaceful agitation
on September 18, 2000 as the management refused to discuss and sort out long standing
issues of revisions in the incentive scheme and equal contribution to pension scheme as per
the subsisting bipartite agreement. The management, violating the statutes, debarred the
workers from working in the factory on October 12, 2000, till they signed an undertaking on
good conduct. Workers refused to this. The management in response put 11 workers under
suspension and terminated the services of four. Later, services of three more were terminated.
The General Secretary and President of Maruti Udyog Employees Union went on hunger strike
on October 3, 2000. The police, on the behest of the management put the fasting leaders in
the hospital and on discharge arrested them. On December 13, 2000 workers staged sit in
demonstrations outside Udyog Bhawan day and night and started hunger strike on December
16. In clashes that followed 2 workers died and 200 arrested. Issue was settled with the
dismissal of 150 workers and 2000 workers were given VRS. Cases against the union leaders
are still pending in the court.
Interestingly the situation at present in the Labour Court in Gurgaon is that there are over 6000
pending labour cases. There is one court for the three districts: Gurgaon, Rewari and Nandannagar,
with one presiding officer. There is no typist in the court for almost 1 1/2 years. Very occasionally, a
typist is hired from the market. Hence, even if cases are heard and orders passed, they are not typed
for months together, in some cases for over a year. After a year, how much the judge will remember,
and what will be the accuracy of typed order, remains debatable.
These incidents make it clear that how to ensure that foreign giants get a trouble free atmosphere to
maximise their profits and get no problems whatsoever from the Indian workers, the state gave a free
hand to its machinery to quash all kinds of labour unrests. The state also gave a tacit approval for the
use of muscle power to quell any sort of union formation in factories. It was these policies of the
government that finally led to the culmination of labour unrest at HMSI ultimately leading to the fateful
day of July 25.
14
Some Facts About HMSI

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Official Name-Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

Established-20th Oct. 1999
Place-New Delhi, India
Capital-Rs. 300 Crore
Representative-Mr. Haruo Takiguchi, President & CEO
Factory Location-Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana, India
Production Capacity-200,000 units per year
Source: www.honda2wheelersindia.com
Recruitment Patterns
According to the information given by the workers, technical staff in Honda was mostly recruited
directly through campus placements from ITI from all over the country. There was a training period of
two years for the fresh recruits or for those who had less than 3 years of work experience and for
those who had more than three years of experience the training period was 1 year, after which they
were absorbed in the company.
This practice was however undergoing a change. According to the new policies of the company, all
the workers after completing the training would have to give and exam and they would be absorbed in
the company only if they passed this exam.
However after talks with the union leaders, reports of struggles and the final agreement that settled
the dispute shows that these provisions were used to victimise workers rather than test their ability.
After the retrenchment of the 2700 workers by HMSI on May 27, 2005, almost 2000 fresh recruits
were taken into the company as technical staff to work on a contract for period of 6 months. These
recruitments were done by Contractor, Mr. Maan, from Jind in Haryana. It is important to note here
that this batch of contract labour was taken from Haryana, while recruitment of the previous batches
of workers were done on an all India basis through ITI. There was a deliberate attempt to isolate
workers on the basis of their linguistic and regional identity, which did not stop with the recruitments,
continued upto the police station.
Wages and Other Benefit
Wages of the permanent workers were above the minimum wage. The fact-finding team met 8
workers retrenched on May 27, 2005 and they all confirmed that their wages were above 5000. They
were paid double wages for overtime work.
My salary was Rs. 6900 as mentioned in the appointment letter. The salary slip showed Rs. 6300.
After deductions I used to get Rs 5000 in Hand. After a re-fixation of salary in the month of April my
salary was hiked to almost RS. 8500. But we got this salary only twice. We have not received any
salary for 2 months, told a worker21 who is an Operator with HMSI who was among the 2800 workers
21
Name of the worker has been kept confidential for fear of victimisation
15
retrenched on May 27, 2005, presently injured being treated at the government hospital. It is important
to note here that documents reveal that the real wages paid by the company differed considerable
and arbitrarily. This must have been a source of tension.
Workers complained that their wages were never increased in HMSI. The annual increments were
anything between Rs 200-300. Though they did not demand a hike in the wages, following a few
incidents of misbehaviour by the management towards the workers and workers resistance towards
them, the management gave the workers in the technical staff a massive hike in their wages; Rs 3000
in the month of April. In the context of unionisation, the hike should also be seen as management
technique to tempt the workers. However the workers got their salary for only 2 months: April and
May. On May 27, 2005 the entire technical staff (operators) were retrenched.
The fact finding team met two technical workers recruited by HMSI in the month of June. These
workers informed that their salary was above Rs. 5000. I was recruited to Honda on June 1st through
Maan contractor. I was a contract worker. The contract period was 6 months. My salary was 5000 and
worked for 8 hours in a day for 6 days in a week. Overtime was double. However, we have not got
any salary till now. We were made to stay inside the factory under very tough conditions and were
constantly under guard with guards from group 4 security agency. About 2000 workers had to sleep
under one roof. There was no fresh air. I sometimes went in the lawn outside to sleep. We were given
facilities like television and could call back home but were not free to leave when we wanted,
explained a worker22 at HMSI.
Another worker23, confirmed this. In the Honda factory there were about 250 permanent workers who
lived there. They were given air-conditioned rooms to stay. Besides them there was 500-600 non
technical staff from outside and about 2000 casual workers who slept in the same hall, he said.
22
23
16
Background to the Incident on July 25, 2005

Insolent Management
After hearing the first hand account from many workers, the fact-finding team found that the Honda
management was in the habit of ill-treating and humiliating its workers. On December 17, 2004, the
Vice President of HMSI, Mr. Hiroshi, a Japanese national, allegedly kicked a worker at around 11:00
pm. He had also misbehaved with a woman employee, hit a worker with a hammer on his head and
snatched the turban off from a Sikh worker. Continuing bad behaviour of Mr. Hiroshi was the factor
that prompted workers to get united to uphold their dignity.
Mr. Hiroshi used to go to the ladies toilet. When the workers complained, the DC told them in Japan
both men and women bathe in the same toilet. If you have to work in the factory of a Japanese, you
will have to work the way they work in Japan. A lady staff of the management resigned because of
this misbehaviour said an operator24 working with HMSI.
Allurements to Divide and Rule
The management tried to wedge differences among the workers. While the permanent recruits were
originally from different parts of the country, later they settled in Haryana. On February 6, once the A
shift workers left after doing their normal schedule, the workers of B shift were told of a salary hike of
Rs 3000. The management also told them that subsequent to this hike they would get a hike of Rs
2000 each year for the next two years. Interestingly, instead of making a general announcement the
workers were called individually by the management and told about this.
Every worker was asked to sign an agreement stating the salary hike and a blank piece of paper
separately which is not legal. Alerted by this attitude some workers such as Harjeet Singh, Vinod
Tiwari and others opposed this. Tiwari went a step ahead and asked the management to return all the
blank papers signed by the workers, which the management refused.
To mark their protest against this, workers observed a token hunger strike in the factory canteen on
February 7-8, 2005. They did not have lunch but worked and met their targets. Resolved more than
ever to make a union, workers chose seven people - Suresh Gaur, Chand Tikar, Vinod Tiwari,
Safeeque, Sujinder Singh and Kundan Mehta, Harjeet to carry out the responsibilities of the
leadership. The union applied for registration on February 8, 2005. Usually it takes a maximum of two
months for a union to get the registration number but the HMSI Workers Union could get the
registration only in April (Reg. No: 1811 and affiliated to the AITUC). Here we note the constant stress
on legality on the part of the workers and its patent lack in the management.
Two months of intense turmoil May-June 2005
Subsequently, an FIR by Mr. Rishi Mishra, an officer of HMSI working in the pressing department
resulted in the termination of the services of four workers - Suresh Gaur, President, HMSI workers
union, Balakrishna, Malikarjun and Vivek Sharma. The services of these four workers were terminated
on May 28, 2005. Mishra has not been seen ever since nor are the workers aware of what the FIR
contains.
Following this, HMSI started suspending workers on the basis of one or the other pretext. Almost 27
24
17
people had been suspended by May 2005.

It was when these incidents happened that we thought of joining a union, said a worker25 of HMSI.
In the month of May the workers of HMSI once again went on a hunger strike. Reason was the
suspension of workers and the fact that the management was not ready to recognize the union. The
workers used to work and finish the targets, but during lunch they used to sit in the canteen without
eating.
As a response to this the Management put up a notice stating that if they do not eat lunch they will
have to pay Rs 25. The arrangement was that for lunch the workers used to contribute Rs 6 and the
management Rs 19. So if they refuse to eat, the management will not pay its share for lunch and the
entire amount will be deducted from the workers salary.
On June 22, 2005, 33 workers finished their training. They were asked to leave. Prior to this, a day
before, two workers had been asked to leave as they finished their training. This was the first time in
the five years of the existence of HMSI that trainees were not absorbed in the company. When
questioned, the management informed that they have opted for a new policy that is the trainees will
have to give written test and prove their calibre before the company absorbs them. We are willing to
give the test, but when we are sure it is only an eyewash and none of us will be selected what is the
point in giving such tests? asks a trainee who finished his two-year training.
The demand for two-year training before absorption itself is not justifiable. All the trainees are ITI
pass-outs who come for work after one year of apprenticeship in reputed industries. Besides this
these trainees during their two-year training period is made to perform all the duties of a permanent
staff. In spite of this is the new technique of making them work and not absorbing them. The
management has very clearly told us that the plight of all trainees will be exactly similar to those 33
who were asked not to continue after successful completion, says a Honda trainee.
Three incidents on June 25
On June 25, the workers of HMSI held a rally. The venue was near the Institute of Management
Technology. Almost 1500 workers from Shift A participated in this. They were tired from the negative
response of the administration, as it had not done anything to resolve their dispute with the
management.
On June 25, 2005, 4-5 policemen, men in plain clothes and a few management people knocked at the
house of Lalit Udadhyay, a worker of HMSI at midnight. They pretended to be his friends. When Lalit
Upadhyay opened the door, he was forcibly taken by them into an Indica Car. They forced him to take
them to the houses of other HMSI members. Lalit was reluctant but the management people had all
the addresses. Police raided the house of another HMSI worker. Lalit along with 8 other HMSI people
sleeping in this house were then taken to the police station and kept them in the lock up the whole
night. An FIR was lodged against them only at 9 am in the morning. At that time the police did not
notice the two union leaders Suresh Gaur President, HMSI and Sheikh Abdul Shafi, who were
sleeping on the roof top of this house.
Later the police realised that Suresh Gaur and Safi were also sleeping in the same house. They went
back and raided the house again. Shafi and Suresh, according to the workers, were thrown from the
third floor of the house. Suresh got a fracture on the foot and was taken into police custody. Shafi
25
18
fractured his hip. The police had tortured them despite the fact that they had an anticipatory bail. Later
they were taken to hospital by 3 other workers from the same house who managed to hide and
escape the police. They tried to file a FIR but in vain.
June 27, 2005 HMSI declares an illegal lockout
According to the workers on June 27 the pick up vehicle did not reach many workers. When they
reached the factory using local modes of transportation, they were not allowed entry inside the
factory. The factory gate was locked and the management had declared an illegal lockout. About 2700
workers were retrenched by HMSI on that day. The reason for this was that they had registered a
union Honda Motor Cycles and Scooter India Employees Union affiliated to All India Trade Union
Congress (AITUC). There was no strike, no demand for wage hike or bonus, no protest for better
working condition, so we can only infer that forming a union, was considered a crime by the
employers.
The following day, company refused to take the workers on duty unless they sign an undertaking the
content of which was not told to the workers. To avoid accusation of strike, union officers bearers said
they would sign the paper. However when workers agreed to sign the undertaking, company resorted
to other tactics and refused them the entry inside the factory. This happened on June 28. The
management gave no reason for not allowing the workers to enter even after signing the undertaking.
The very next day (July 28) onwards workers started sitting 100 metres away from the factory
demanding justice. The union maintained an attendance register26. The Union took attendance of
workers twice: in the morning and evening.
Rally on July 11
Workers of HMSI organized a mass demonstration on July 11 at Kamla Nehru Park. Section 144 of
IPC was declared around the DC residence where the workers were supposed to go. The workers
had a demonstration at Kamla Nehru Park. Almost 10 000-12 000 people from various factories were
present. Gurudas Dasgupta, CPI MP and Deepankar Mukherjee, CPM MP were also present. The
workers had decided that if the administration did not accept the memorandum, they would go on a
hunger strike. However the DC came personally and took the memorandum from the workers at
Kamla Nehru Park.
July 14 and 15, 2005
In spite of all the assurances given, on July 14 and 15, the police intervened again in favour of the
management by arresting six workers of the HMSI. Two workers Ved Prakash and Mandeep were
beaten up first by the muscleman of the management and later by the police. The two workers were
booked under section 107 and 151 of CRPC.
Following Negotiations
Management promised and backtracked many times showing that they were not negotiating in good
faith. Whenever the workers would decide to accept an offer, the management would notch it up to
another level, essentially showing they did not want to arrive at any settlement. The negotiations were
26
See Appendix 2
19
tripartite management, labour officer and union of HMSI. Other unions-HMS, AITUC and CITU were
also present at times.
In a negotiation in Gurgaon the management agreed to take back workers in batches of 1200.
However later it backtracked giving no reason for it. Following this in a negotiation in Chandigarh the
management agreed to take workers in batches of 400. On 16 July, the management gave a
statement in the Dainik Tribune27 that it has agreed to take back workers in batches of 400, but the
workers are not coming as they are on strike. It even published the identity number of the workers in
the paper.
July 18, 2005 Flag Hoisting by the Union
According to the workers, when they heard that the management has proposed to take in workers in
batches of 400, more than 400 reached the factory. However they were not allowed entry. The
management wanted the workers to sign on an undertaking, in which they were to agree on
maintaining good conduct, meet production targets and not raise any further demands for a specified
period.
The workers were not opposed to individual settlements, but workers understood that the
management was insisting on a surrender certificate from the union. A representation of 5 workers of
the HMSI Workers Union were called inside the factory and they met the management on this issue.
On July 18, the HMSI union leaders had also planned to hoist the flag of the HMSI Workers union at
the factory. The police, at 9.30 am said that the workers will not be allowed to put up the flag.
Workers did not want to violate the norm of keeping 100 mts away from the factory, they only wanted
that about 5 of them are allowed to go near the gate and hoist the flag. However, this was not
acceptable to the police and management, noted D.L. Sachdev, Secretary AITUC, who was also
present among the workers on that day.
It was informed to the FF Committee that in spite of the substantial presence of the police force on
that day at the factory gate, there were goons inside the factory who were standing with iron tipped
rods in their hands. The SDM and the DCP were also present on that day at the factory gate. While
the union leaders were having an argument with the SDM and DCP on the presence of armed goons
inside the factory, five workers from among the HMSI Workers Union went up to the gate and hoisted
the Unions flag.
According to the Labour Conciliation Officer, Mr Gupta, subsequently 800 workers signed the
undertaking on July 18 and 1100 on July 19, 2005.
On July 19, the management backtracked on its public statement that it would take back workers in
batches of 400. According to the Labour Conciliation Officer Mr. Gupta, Reason given by the
management was that the previous day the workers had forcefully hoisted their flag, violating the 100
m prohibition, so they could do anything. Hence they were not convinced in taking workers in big
groups of 400. The management then gave a schedule according to which it would take 100 workers
on the first 2 days, then 150 workers on the next 2 days followed by 200 workers on the next 2 days
and so on. Accordingly by July 29 all workers would be taken back. However, at that time the workers
did not agree to this. They said that given the attitude of the management, there was every possibility
that the management would backtrack again and if they agreed for 100, the management might say
that not 100 but only 50 workers would be taken back. I continued to visit the place outside the factory
27
See Appendix 3
20
where the workers sat every day. On July 22, I again told them that they should agree to what the
management said as that would help in maintaining peace. On July 23, the workers agreed to go in
batches of 100. Now the management refused again. They said that we would only take the workers
when all the issues are settled, the main ones being: a) dismissed workers will not be reinstated, b)
proceedings against the suspended workers will be completed and c) the Union will not put up any
demand for the next 3 years. On this, the negotiation talks broke once again.
According to the workers they declined to join work in batches of 100, as they were frightened of the
armed goons of the management inside the factory, which the workers had been repeatedly
complaining to the Labour Conciliation Officer. This aspect was missing in what Mr. Gupta said.
While the administration is aware of the fact that goons are present in the factory, they try to cover up
this illegal activity.
July 23, Road Block by the Workers
The management backtracking once again from its words, workers went on a road block on the
evening on July 23, 2005. The workers blocked the highway from 6 pm to 10 pm. Two FIRs were
registered against the workers.
21
The Incident on July 25, 2005

The Fact Finding Team attempted a reconstruction of the events that lead to the police lathicharge on
HMSI workers on July 25, 2005 at the mini secretariat based on the information gathered from various
sources including eye witnesses and workers. It is given as follows:
Workers assembled at Kamla Nehru Park
On the morning of July 25, by about 8.30 am, about 3000-4000 workers assembled at the Kamla
Nehru Park in Gurgaon. Out of these about 2500-3000 workers were from HMSI and about 700-800
workers were from other companies - Ramson, Speedomax, Ricoh, Omax and Amera foods. Many of
them were to join duty at 3 pm shift. The rally was called to express solidarity with the dismissed
HMSI workers, as had been decided in a convention of all Haryana Trade Unions on June 18, with a
peaceful march to hand over a memorandum to the DC. No pre-planning for confrontation was there
on the part of the workers.
Raj Singh, CITU, Gurgaon; Subhash Diwan, AITUC; Gurgaon; Suresh Gaur, HMSI and Khushi Ram,
Group 4 security were among the main leaders.
At about 11.30 am their rally began from Kamla Nehru Park.
Incident near Kalyani Hospital
However at about 12.15 pm, near Kalyani Hospital, which is about 1.5 km from where the rally had
started a little ahead of ITI towards the Mehrauli road industrial area, the workers were stopped by the
police and were prevented from proceeding further. Workers resisted this.
I got the first lathi of the police outside Kalyani hospital. It was the police that started coming down on
the workers first. However, we decided to proceed, recalled a worker28 of HMSI who had three
stitches on his head.
As the workers proceeded further, stones pelting started from a building on the opposite side of the
Kalyani Hospital. Workers also witnessed some unidentified men who were walking along with the
procession pelting stones at the police. In the melee a Police Gypsy and motorcycle were set ablaze
and few policemen were hurt. According to the workers the fact-finding team met, it was not workers
but agent-provocateurs who had done this.
Near Kalyani Hospital the police were very few in number with one gypsy and a motorcycle. Police hit
a few workers and that sparked off a series of incidents that culminated in the mini secretariat action,
noted a worker29 of HMSI.
In the clash the DSP was hurt.
According to eyewitnesses, there were not more than 40-50 policemen present when this incident
took place.
28
29
22
Shortly after this clash the DC reached the spot. He met Sujinder Singh, Vice President of HMSI
workers union and told him that he is willing to meet the workers and take the memorandum from
them at the mini secretariat. .
On hearing this workers took a right turn and passing through Sector 15 reached the mini secretariat
by about 2.00-2.30 pm. Unaware of the brutality that the Haryana Police was going to unleash upon
them, the nave workers expected this meeting to be just like July 11, when the DC and the SP
personally took the memorandum from the workers in the Gurudas Dasgupta, Member of Parliament.
Workers were too trusting!
Incident at the Mini Secretariat
Police led the workers inside the mini secretariat.
Inside the lawns of Mini Secretariat the workers sat
peacefully for about 20-30 minutes. Tired after a
long day, the workers took off their shoes and
relaxed under the shadow of trees in a walled
enclosure, no one imagining a confrontation would
ensue.
At about 2.45-3 pm, Sudhir Rajpal, the DC clad in
riot police gear with lathi in his hand waved the
workers to keep sitting as the workers started
getting up. In no time they were surrounded by
hundreds of police personnel in riot combat gear.
A smashed pillar at the Mini Secretariat, July 27, 2005
Before the workers could sense any danger, combined forces of Haryana police started lathicharge on
the sitting workers from all the sides. The police force completely covered the open ends of the Park.
The boundary wall of the mini secretariat and the secretariat building were too tall for workers to jump
over. The workers were trapped inside. One after the other police lathis crushed and slit open their
heads. Many received multiple fractures in their arms and legs. Police allowed no worker to escape.
Those who tried to were thrown one on top of the
other, like rucksacks and beaten. The unyielding
wrath of the Haryana Police resounded as they
forced the workers to say Haryana Police
Zindabad. This continued for almost half an hour.
The DC and SP themselves had lathis. People
were asked to sit down in the park. Then they
surrounded and attacked the sitting people from
all sides. People were not allowed to leave.
People thought that the whole incident is over,
however, they were mistaken, remarked VS
Yadav of HMS, an eyewitness. I have seen
agitation, but never this kind of violence. If people
covered their heads, the police would pull their
arms out to get at the heads, he further
exclaimed.
Remains after the lathichrge at the Mini Secretariat, July 27, 2005
23
The DC emerged from one side clad in a riot gear. He was the first one to start hitting the workers,
explained a worker30 of HMSI and an eyewitness.
Peacefully sitting workers were mercilessly attacked by the DC and the police, said another worker31
of HMSI.
All of us saw how the DC and his army appeared suddenly and started hitting the workers, recalled a
worker32 of HMSI.
A worker33 noted that, Even in the Mini Secretariat we were caught unaware by the police. They
came down on us heavily. Yet it was our pradhan (leader) who saved the DSP from the wrath of the
attackers. Sajinder Singh and I came in front and asked the people not to hit the DSP.
People were sitting peacefully when they were attacked. They fell on top of each other. There was no
way to escape, recalled a worker34.
Almost 800 workers were injured in the police action.
According to the victims, police asked the injured workers where they were hurt. If a worker said that
his arm was fractured, the policemen further twisted his arm, saying that the twist would make him
feel better; if a worker said that he had a fractured leg, the leg was hit again with the lathi..
By about 4 pm the clash in the mini secretariat was over. Now the police dragged the injured workers
to the police vehicles. Some people were filled up in busses. Some vehicles with the injured were
taken to Civil Hospital, Gurgaon.
Police was not allowing us to pick up people. They asked us to throw people on the road, lamented
another worker35 of HMSI.
In the Police Station
Workers were taken to 9 police stations:
Manesar Thana: 294 people
Sadar Thana: 320+64 people
Sohna Thana: 150 people
Thana in Sector 29: number not known
CIA Thana: number not known
DLF Thana: number not known
City Thana: number not known
30
32
33
34
35
31
24
According to the official reports, 4 FIRs36 were registered in 3 Thanas:

City Thana: FIR no. 436/05: Victims charged under IPC 145, 147, 332, 353, 435, 427, 283, 188 and
307
City Thana: FIR no. 437/05: Victims charged under IPC148, 149, 332, 353, 188 and 427
Sadar Thana: FIR No. 368/05
Thana Bilaspur, Manesar: FIR No 209/05
Later, 64 arrested workers were put in Bhondsi Jail. As on July 30, there were 61 workers in jail.
Among them 5 workers were facing charges in 4 cases and 54 were facing charges in 2 cases.
Among the jailed workers, 55 were from HMSI and three from Spedomax. Raj Singh (CITU) and
Subhash Diwan (AITUC) were also in the jail. The administration however put the number of Honda
workers at 28 rest they said were casual employees.
Situation in Sadar Thana
About 320 people kept in Sadar Thana were later let out on Bail. They were charged under CrPC 107
& 150. Usually a trial under this section finishes after a magisterial trial within 6 months.
Under a magisterial trial, the accused are given a date to appear in the court, failing which they will
have to pay a fixed penalty. Fixing the penalty is the discretion of the Magistrate. For such a trial,
usually the penalty ranges between Rs 100-500. But in this case, it has been set at Rs 10,000. The
accused workers had been asked to appear in the court on specified dates between August 1-6,
2005.
We are scared to go to the court. Since July 25, we have been sitting at home. We are scared of
being arrested or getting disappeared like our other comrades if we step out. How will we go to the
court we do not know, what will happen to us said some workers whose date to appear in the court
was on August 6.
Situation in Manesar Thana
About 294 people were brought to the Manesar Thana on July 25, by about 7 pm. Workers who were
there narrated incidents of police brutality one after the other.
Even the civilians in the police station beat us. The child who comes to serve tea in the police station
hit us very badly with lathis and chappals, noted a worker37.
One worker reported that he had surrendered his mobile at the police station. He was never told how
to get it back, there is no proof he gave it, and now considers it gone.
Rajendra Pathak, an advocate dealing with the workers cases informed the Fact Finding Team that on
July 25, the police snatched over 300 mobiles, nearly Rs 1 lakh and various other belongings from the
workers while arresting them and admitting them to the hospitals!
36
37
See Appendix 4
25
Rajendra Pathak also gave a statement to the police that the DC had a lathi in his hand and was
hitting the workers. For saying this he was booked under section 307 of IPC and was put in a box and
smothered during questioning.
The detainees were let out in three different batches between 1-2 am in the night: at Pataudi Road,
Rewadi Road and Sohna Road.
The Civil Hospital Destination of the Injured
Dr. Krishan K. Yadav, who was a Doctor on duty on the day of incident told that his estimation would
be that around 400 injured were brought to the civil hospital. Around 40-50 were immediately sent to
Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi because of lack of infrastructure to treat such massive casualties at
the Civil hospital in Gurgaon. Many were given first aid and others were admitted with head injuries
and fractured arms. Few had multiple fractures of arms and legs. Some who were serious got the CT
scan of head done from outside. However there was complete chaos on the first day and the exact
number of injured treated was not known.
Injured workers in the hospital suspected that a dead body bought to the hospital was of a Honda
worker. But the authorities gave a statement that he was not a Honda worker, said a worker of
HMSI38.
When the fact-finding team reached the hospital, they found only 7 workers admitted. Rest had been
discharged or were shifted to nearby private hospitals.
According to the authorities, the rest had all left after treatment. Two nurses and one doctor agreed
that there were many injured; many more than beds could accommodate. All injured were treated.
A list of 60 workers was seen pasted on the wall of the Hospital indicating that they were taken to
Bhondsi Jail from the hospital39.
Family Members
The family members seem to have found out about the violence on their dear ones through
sympathetic calls from friends and relatives. The government or the company seems to have made
no effort in communicating with family members about the serious conditions (injured, dead or
missing) of the workers.
I came to know that my husband has been injured through a call from a friend. Before that through
TV we came to know about the incident, said the wife of a worker40 of HMSI admitted in the hospital.
When the news of clash reached HMSI
Production in HMSI was going on in two shifts when the clash took place on July 25, 2005. Most of
those working in the factory were casual workers. HMSI recruited around 1000 freshers in the month
of June as technical staff to work on a contract basis for a period of six months. Workers told the Fact
Finding Team that the recruitments were made through Mr. Maan, a labour contractor.
38
See Appendix 5
40
39
26
As the news of the incident reached these workers inside the factory, they ran away from the
premises of HMSI. We were scared that our fate would be worse than that of those workers as we
were inside the factory, said a worker41 of HMSI.
On July 26, 2005 at about 2 pm, almost 2000 workers scaled the wall of the Plant and escaped from
the factory premises.
Our number was so huge that the security could not do anything. We all just escaped, said another
worker42 of HMSI.
I was on of them. We jumped out of the factory gate and ran away, recalled another worker of
HMSI43.
Workers informed that since this incident on July 26, 2005 work went on in HMSI only in Shift A.
About 1200-1300 workers were still inside the factory on July 27, when the fact-finding team met
these workers.
Search for the Missing Workers
When the fact-finding team met the victims, their primary concern was to locate the missing workers.
Anything between 200-500 workers could be missing, they said. The workers gave us a list of the
missing people44.
Was There a Declaration of Section 144 on July 25?
During the fact-finding visit, the team did not find any evidence of a declaration of Section 144 in
Gurgaon on July 25, 2005 . The workers told the fact-finding team that they were not informed of any
declaration of 144. However an examination of the FIRs revealed that a number of workers were
booked under Section 188 which is the violation of section 144. Hence a delegation of the fact-finding
team once again went to the field to investigate into this. The team was able to see a copy of the
notification, which was dated July 25, 2005, in the office of the City Magistrate, however the City
Magistrate, Mr. Ajay Malik, who is the issuing authority for the notification of Section 144, refused to
give a copy of the same saying that it was a secret document. He said that the District Public
Relations Officer (DPRO) is responsible for public dealings and only he is authorised to give a copy of
the notification to the public. The DPRO however informed the Fact Finding Team that all the copies
of the notification sent to him were distributed to the press the same day.
One important issue raised here is that if there was a declaration of section 144 on July 25, then why
were the workers allowed to assemble at Kamla Nehru Park? According to the Criminal Procedure
Code, 17345, an assembly once declared unlawful shall be ordered to disperse. If it does not disperse,
or shows a determination not to disperse, only then the police can proceed to disperse such assembly
by force. According to the Punjab Police Rules46, applicable in Haryana, All attempts to disperse a
crowd by warning, exhortation, etc, shall be made before it is declared an unlawful assembly and, as
such, ordered to disperse. Once an order to disperse has been defied, or when the attitude of a crowd
41
43
44
See Appendix 6
45
See Appendix 7
46
See Appendix 8
42
27
is obviously defiant, force shall be used without hesitation. The degree of force used shall be the
minimum which the responsible officer, with the exercise of due care and attention, decides to be
necessary for the effective dispersal of the crowd and the making of such arrests as may be desired.
The degree and duration of the use of force shall be limited as much as possible, and the least deadly
weapon which the circumstances permit shall be used. The Fact Finding team concluded that no
such action was taken, or if it was, it was in a manner invisible to the people.
Violence on the Following Days
Violence in Gurgaon did not stop with the lathicharge on July 25. July 26 and 27 also saw spurts of
bloodshed around the area of the civil hospital where most of the injured were brought in. The workers
of HMSI who met the Fact Finding team confirmed that they were not responsible for this violence.
According to Advocate Rajendra Pathak, An FIR (438) dated 267.05 registered in Sadar thana said
that workers of Vishwa Hindu Parishad had misbehaved with the Haryana Police personnel and the
DSP. In order to control the crowd, police resorted to teargas first and then lathicharge. However,
despite the FIR, no arrests were made. Similarly there was also an FIR against Lok Dal, for July 27,
but no arrests were made.
Within the hospital premises some agitated family members of the missing HMSI workers retorted
back at the hospital authorities and police when asked to leave on January 26 without getting any
information about their dear ones.
My name is Rajesh. I work nearby. I had come here to give lunch to my wife. After giving her lunch
when I went to pick up my motorcycle, I could sense some danger. Before I could leave from there I
was hit by a lathi on my head. I fell unconscious. I dont know where my motorcycle is. I hope my wife
knows I am injured, narrated Rajesh, a passer by who was attacked by a lathi near the civil hospital
on July 26, 2005.
28
Final Settlement
The HMSI Union and Management arrived at a settlement47 on July 29, 2005. The memorandum of
understanding was signed by Yukihiro Aoshina, President and CEO, HMSI, on behalf of the
management and Suresh Gaur, President HMSI Workers union, on behalf of the workers, Masayuki
Kato, Director, General Affairs and Sujinder Singh, Vice President, HMSI Workers Union, Vivek
Vishwanath, Manager, HR and IR and Harjeet Singh, treasurer, HMSI Workers Union. Promilla Issar,
Labour Secretary, Haryana signed the agreement. It read as follows:
1. Workers will be paid their full salary for the months of May and June, 2005. For wages after
the period of June 27, 2005, the Supreme Courts direction of No work No Pay will be
applicable. However, any worker who wants, will get 50 per cent of the salary in advance that
will be adjusted at the end of the month.
2. Workers will behave decently and in a disciplinary manner and maintain the production levels.
They will sign an undertaking to this effect.
3. The four dismissed workers will be taken back and they will be posted in other than the
manufacturing section. These four workers will have to give written unconditional apologies.
4. All suspended workers will be taken back, however the process of enquiry against them will
continue. Company may transfer them to any other branch after the completion of the enquiry
other than the manufacturing section.
5. All those workers who have an FIR against them will have to submit written apologies to the
complainant authorities.
6. All pending collective demands put forth by the workers will be considered as withdrawn.
Workers for any one year will not put any demand notice.
7. If the workers will co-operate, maintain good conduct and discipline and also maintain the
production targets, then the company will itself increase their wages within a year.
8. Trainees will be assessed by the internal appraisal procedures of the company and the test
will be discontinued.
9. The number of contract labourers will be maintained to the same as that of June 27, 2005.
10. If the apprentices will give unconditional apologies, then they will be taken back.
11. Injured workers who are not in a position to join back duty will get paid leave.
12. The legal compensation will be given to the family of the deceased apprentice Kanhaiya Lal.
As compensation one member from his family will be given a job according to his/her
qualification and the rules of the company.
13. HMSI will consider to take back the 35 trainees who were retrenched on June 22, 2005.
47
See Appendix 9
29
14. This agreement will be considered as final and both parties will maintain harmony in future.
According to Sujinder Singh, Vice President of HMSI workers union, they were also given a verbal
assurance from the Chief Minister of Haryana that once the judicial inquiry is completed cases from all
the workers will be withdrawn.
There are two positive aspects of the settlement: a) The management recognised the union and
signed a settlement with them and b) all the retrenched workers have been reinstated. However, the
terms of the settlement make it clear that how the management has forced the workers, using the
clout of the State to compromise and seek apologies from the management for raising their voice on
basic rights and how after joining back, their freedom has been curtailed.
It is important to note the following evident flaws in the settlement: a) The Supreme Court Direction of
No Work No Pay is applicable when a worker is not coming to work. Not when there is an illegal
lockout by the factory, like in the case of HMSI. b) The management has forced the union to withdraw
all pending demands and commit that they will not raise any demand for one year. By this clause, in
effect, the union has been paralysed and c) It is also important to note that it is only a verbal
assurance from CM that after the judicial inquiry, cases from the workers will be withdrawn. D) While
the 35 trainees have been taken back, provocation continues as after completing a years training,
they have been taken in as fresh recruits from August 1, 2005 - one year of their work goes
unaccounted.
Response from the Administration
Meeting with the District Commissioner
A delegation of the fact-finding team met48 the District Commissioner, Mr Bhardwaj. He refused to
comment on the incident as he said that it was under judicial inquiry. However he said, definitely
outsiders were involved in the incident.
He also informed that the present state of affairs in the HMSI is normal. The administration is
watching it time to time.
Regarding compensation he informed that a compensation package of Rs 20000 has been
announced for the injured. The DC could not tell how many people have received this compensation.
List of the victims to whom the compensation has been disbursed was not available with him. He
could only confirm that there is a list of 95 injured with the administration and according to that list
whoever is claiming the compensation, is getting it.
Regarding the missing, the DC very clearly said, there is no missing person. It is important to note
that this statement is not based on any enquiry. The administration has not conducted any inquiry into
the issue of missing workers.
Meeting with Labour cum Conciliation Officer
A delegation of the fact-finding team met49 the Labour cum Conciliation Officer.
48
the delegation met the DC on August 18, 2005. Prior to this on July 27, 2005 and August 16, 2005 the team tried to meet
the DC but he was not available
49
the delegation met the Labour Conciliation Officer on August 17, 2005. Prior to this on July 27, 2005 the team tried to
meet him but he was not available
30
Responding to why were workers illegally detained in the HMSI factory premises, with armed goons
guarding them, even after the incident on July 25, 2005, Labour cum Conciliation Officer, Mr. S.K.
Gupta said that, we cannot give an impression to the world that HMSI was forced to leave Gurgaon
because of labour problems. Whatever be the situation, the factory has to keep running.
Mr. Gupta was of a strong view that conciliation laws must be strictly followed. The ID Act has several
provisions for settling industrial dispute. They should come into force strictly. The Administration
should not enter into conciliation, he noted.
Response from the Management
On behalf of the fact finding team, National Campaign on Labour Rights had sent a letter50 addressed
to Vivek Vishwanath, Manager HR and IR, HMSI and asked HIMSI to give information on the
following:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
What is the HR policy in HMSI and whether there is any other specific policy regarding
dismissals and suspensions
What were the management labour discussions and negotiations prior to June 27, 2005
What led to the mass suspension of workers on June 27, 2005
What happened after June 27, 2005
It is alleged that the management of HMSI did not recognize the union. How far is this true?
What was the settlement between the management and the Union on July 29, 2005. Whether
it is in any way similar to contract with workers in other Honda factories including those in
Japan
Whether HMSI has taken any new steps to ensure harmonious management labour relations
so that such a lock out and labour reaction does not occur again
However, HMSI has not responded.
50
See Appendix 10
31
Who is the Guilty?

HMSI
The primary onus of the tragedy that struck the workers of HMSI has to be put on the management of
HMSI. Studying the months preceding July makes it clear how the management: a) threatened the
dignity of the workers b) tried to trample the basic right of workers to organize, c) Intruded into their
homes and personal life by pursuing them to their homes and d) paid no attention to the legality of its
actions. The management used non-workers to deal with workers. The workers however, undeterred
by the divide and rule policy of the HMSI, continued to voice their issues. The result was a gruesome
crackdown on the workforce by the management in connivance with the administration.
Stories narrated by the workers that the fact finding team met seem to point towards a conscious
decision by the management to shed the burden of a workforce that enjoyed a minimum of democratic
entitlements, and to enforce a casualisation of labour. There were frantic efforts to recruit a temporary
workforce with none of the protections of labour law as established in this country; of the change in
personnel policy, from one of recruiting staff with assurances of absorption after a specified period of
training, to one of recruitment with no assurances and no binding requirements on the management
and ending up with labour physically restrained on its premises which actually escaped en masse on
July 26 in the afternoon.
The Administration
The role of the administration the DC in this incident is extremely questionable. On whose behalf
was the DC acting? Why did the DC call the workers to the mini secretariat? What was the reason for
the heavy crackdown? By what mandate did the DC appear before a peacefully sitting group of
workers in a riot gear and lead a lathi charge on them.
Going by the media reports, if it was a revenge by the police for their fellow policemen being
attacked, it cannot be justified by any book of law. According to the Police Manual, in order to
disperse an agitating mob, the police is first supposed to use other means like tear gas and if that
does not help, then resort to lathicharge. In a lathicharge the police is not supposed to hit above the
shoulder. Once a crowd is dispersing, following a lathicharge, the police is not supposed to follow
them. However none of these norms were obeyed by the Haryana Police and the SP concerned
cannot be absolved from the blame
Misleading accounts of the number of injured and those detained by the police are being released to
the media. According to unofficial estimates almost 1000 workers have been injured and some may
be even dead. The administration puts the number of injured at 95. There is no recorded death.
Government Policies
Over the last decade of intensified liberalization and globalisation there have been concerted efforts
on the part of the Central and State governments to undermine the observance of labour standards in
32
industrial units. MNCs are given various kinds of concessions to set up factories and are allowed to
pursue illegal anti-labour policies.
At the behest of the employers the labour department officials responsible for conciliating such labour
dispute take no substantive actions to do the same. The State government through orders further
restricts their authority to conduct inspections.
HMSI set up its shop in India around 5 years back. This was the time when the Haryana Government
was inviting MNCs to settle in their land offering them huge concessions. In fact during a meeting with
union leaders in April 2005, the CM of Haryana openly stated that: I have to run Haryana and take
care of its industries, giving no assurance to the workers. The DC also informed the fact finding team,
We have instructions that Haryana has to be number one in FDI. Should the policy of the
government be to attract FDI no matter what the cost is?
33
Main Findings and Conclusions

The district and police authorities seem to have had clear instructions to inflict violence decisively and
openly, to break any organizing efforts and to show that the government and the management were
committed to establishing the power of corporate authorities regardless of public opinion or moral
compulsions.
This incident is also being portrayed by the ruling government and its supporters as one that would
jeopardize FDI into Gurgaon and as a corollary to that, those who condemn the heinous attacks of the
management and the government are going to destroy the economy of Gurgaon. This line of
argument assumes that anyone who brings credit into this country can do what he likes, irrespective
of our laws and constitution. This is reminiscent of the way in which local authorities confront bonded
labour, telling them to pay back their debts or submit to any form of forced labour.
The right to form a union, the basic fundamental right of workers, was what the Honda management
questioned. The illegal lockout at the factory continued for about one month in spite of genuine efforts
from the workers to break the deadlock. In spite of the repeated tri-partite meetings involving the
District Labour Commissioner, the management was adamant on letting in the workers who dared to
form a union.
The State government is trying to cover up its role by blaming other local parties and insinuating that
the latter instigated the workers. However, the scale, effectiveness, and openness of the violence as
well as tendentious claims that outsiders had instigated it, clearly show that authorities were well
aware of its execution having invited the workers to a parley in the first place and confining them to a
walled space. The workers clearly had no plans for violence as they were preparing to go to work at 3
PM after a peaceful meeting.
The hospital authorities behaved questionably in allowing injured patients to be discharged and taken
away to unknown places. Such impunity is impossible without sanction from higher authorities than
the Medical Superintendent of the hospital.
34
Recommendations
1. A high level enquiry by a sitting judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
must be instituted into the whole matter and the central government must review all policies
related to setting up industries with FDI
2. All the missing workers must be traced and those not found deemed dead and their families be
compensated accordingly.
3. Adequate compensation must also be paid to those injured and the injured must be provided
proper medical treatment.
4. All the workers retrenched after December 2004 should be immediately reinstated by HMSI.
5. The DC, Mr. Sudhir Rajpal and SP, Mr Nehra should be suspended and transferred to ensure
a fair inquiry. If they are found responsible for what happened, they should be prosecuted, put
under trial and severely punished as a deterrent to any repetition of such illegal and callous
behaviour in future.
6. A mechanism should be devised to establish the responsibility and accountability of the
government.
7. Every TNC operating in India should follow a Code of Conduct that is based on the law of the
land and international labour and human rights laws and standards.
8. Right to organise and collective bargaining of the workers must be recognised
35
Appendix I
Table I: Foreign Direct Investment & Technical Collaborations approved:
State-wise In the period August 1991 to March 2003 (Post Policy Period)
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
State
State Not
Indicated
Maharashtra
Tamil Nadu
Delhi
Karnataka
Gujarat
Andhra Pradesh
Haryana
Total for the
above states
(1991-2003)
Number of FDI approvals
Amount of FDI
approved
Total
Technical Financial Rs. Million
% of
Total
5928
2517
3411
751494.85
26.49
4374
2346
2278
2182
1107
1106
815
1227
576
272
466
511
252
297
20136
6118
3147
1770
2006
1716
595
854
518
495873.39
236565.90
340873.81
236890.33
186794.76
132183.58
36219.53
17.37
8.29
11.94
8.30
6.54
4.63
1.27
14017 2416896.15
84.83
Source: Secretariat for Industrial Assistance (SIA) cited from Foreign Direct Investment in
India: A Status Report, September 2003, PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry, New
Delhi, pp16.
36
Table II: Foreign Direct Investment Inflows: Industry-wise

(US$ million)
Industry
Services
Computers
Engineering
Electronics & Electrical Eqpt.
Finance
Chemicals & Allied Products
Pharmaceuticals
Food & Dairy Products
Others
Total
2000-01
226
306
273
213
40
137
62
75
578
2001-02
1128
368
231
659
22
67
69
49
395
2002-03
509
297
262
95
54
53
44
35
309
1910
2988
1658
Source: Reserve Bank of India (RBI) cited from Foreign Direct Investment in India: A Status
Report, September 2003, PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, pp 18.
Note: Inflows under the NRI direct investment rout through RBI, acquisition of shares of
Indian companies by non-residents, equity capital of unincorporated bodies, re-invested
earnings, other capital are excluded as industry-wise details are not available.
37
Table No. III: Share of top investing countries in FDI inflows

(from August 1991 to November 2004)
Amount in rupees crore (millions of US$)
Ran
k
Country
Mauritius
August
1991 to
March
2000
13,272
(3,608)
8,956
(2.450)
3,314
(898)
2,260
(628)
2,286
(670)
2,396
(676)
1,002
(280)
2,094
(572)
1.244
(344)
948
(269)
60, 604
(16,701)
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
(up to
Nov)
4,111
(942)
1,544
(356)
977
(224)
706
(162)
303
(70)
540
(123)
455
(104)
90
(21)
502
(117)
71
(16)
12,645
(2,908)
10,063
(2,182)
1,748
(382)
809
(178)
890
(196)
1,673
(366)
519
(113)
499
(108)
5
(1)
251
(54)
180
(40)
19,361
(4,222)
3,766
(788)
1,504
(319)
1,971
(412)
836
(176)
1,617
(340)
684
(144)
534
(112)
188
(39)
180
(38)
437
(93)
14,932
(3,134)
2,609
(567)
1,658
(360)
360
(78)
2,247
(486)
769
(167)
373
(81)
176
(38)
110
(24
172
(37)
207
(45)
12,117
(2,634)
3,730
(811)
2,401
(522)
466
(101)
906
(197)
361
(78)
553
(120)
165
(36)
115
(25)
225
(49)
287
(62)
11,726
(2,549)
Total
inflows
Percenta
ge of
total
inflows
34.49
37,551
(8,898)
2
USA
17,811
17.08
(4,389)
3
Japan
7,897
7.33
(1,891)
4
Netherlan
7,845
7.16
ds
(1,847)
5
UK
7,009
6.56
(1,692)
6
Germany
5,066
4.86
(1,254)
7
France
2, 822
2.63
(679)
8
South
2,601
2.64
Korea
(682)
9
Singapore
2,573
2.48
(639)
10
Switzerlan
2,130
2.04
d
(525)
Total FDI
1,31,38 2.04
Inflows
5
(32,290)
Source: SIA, FDI, Data Cell, Ministry of Commerce &Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and
Promotion.
Note:
* Includes inflows under NRI Schemes of RBI, Stoke Swapped and advanced pending issue of
shares.
Source: http:/indiabudget.nic.in
38
Table IV: Foreign Direct Investment Flow to India: Approved Versus Actual Inflow
1991
Approved
Inflow
Inflow as %
of Approved
5.3
3.5
66.0
1992
38.9
6.8
17.5
1993
88.6
17.9
20.2
1994
1995
141.9
32.9
23.2
320.7
68.2
21.3
1996
361.5
103.9
28.7
1997
548.9
164.3
29.9
1998
308.1
133.4
43.3
1999
2000
283.7
168.7
59.5
370.4
193.4
52.2
Source: Secretariat for Industrial Assistance (SIA) cited from Foreign Direct Investment in India: A
Status Report, September 2003, PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, pp 15.
Note: Approved figures include 98 proposals for GDRs / ADRs / FCCBs / approved by FIPB
involving an investment of Rs. 484.71 billion.
39
200
2
1
Appendix 2
Attendance Register of the HMSI Workers union (recovered by the fact finding team from
the Mini Secretariat on July 27, 2005)
Appendix 3
40
Appendix 4
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Appendix 5
50
Appendix 6
List given by the HMSI Workers Union
Sr. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Name of the Missing Person
State
Ajeet Singh Rawat

Sanjay
Kamal Kishore
Amit Sahu
Puran Chander
Purushottam
Thilashesh
Sandeep Rohilla
Vijay
Ramesh Sharma
Uttaranchal
Maharashtra
Gujrat
Orissa
Karnataka
Karnataka
Karnataka
Rajasthan
Additions from the list given by Workers

Sr. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Name of the Missing Worker

Raj Kumar
Bhag Singh
Rakesh
Rajesh
Makit Singh
Om Prakash
Sushil
Department
Engine Assembly
Engine Assembly
QC
QC
LP
Maintenance
Building
Another group of workers reported Saran Dasappa to be missing.
(The List was compiled by the Fact Finding team on July 27, 2005. It has been cross-checked with the
list of the people arrested by Police and the necessary deletions.)
51
Appendix 7
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
NO.2 OF 1974
[25th January, 1974.]
CHAPTER X
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER AND TRANQUILLITY
A.- Unlawful assemblies
129.Dispersal of assembly by use of civil force.- (1) Any Executive Magistrate or officer incharge of a police
station or, in the absence of such officer incharge, any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may
command any unlawful assembly, or any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the
public peace, to disperse; and it shall thereupon be the duty of the members of such assembly to disperse
accordingly.
(2) If, upon being so commanded, any such assembly does not disperse, or if, without being so commanded, it
conducts itself in such a manner as to show a determination not to disperse, any Executive Magistrate or police
officer referred to in sub-section (1), may proceed to disperse such assembly by force, and may require the
assistance of any male person, not being an officer or member of the armed forces and acting as such, for the
purpose of dispersing such assembly, and, if necessary, arresting and confining the persons who form part of it,
in order to disperse such assembly or that they may be punished according to law.
130.Use of armed forces to disperse assembly.- (1) If any such assembly cannot be otherwise dispersed, and if
it is necessary for the public security that it should be dispersed, the Executive Magistrate of the highest rank
who is present may cause it to be dispersed by the armed forces.
(2) Such Magistrate may require any officer in command of any group of persons belonging to the armed forces
to disperse the assembly with the help of the armed forces under his command, and to arrest and confine such
persons forming part of it as the Magistrate may direct, or as it may be necessary to arrest and confine in order
to disperse the assembly or to have them punished according to law.
(3) Every such officer of the armed forces shall obey such requisition in such manner as he thinks fit, but in so
doing he shall use as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with
dispersing the assembly and arresting and detaining such persons.
131.Power of certain armed force officers to disperse assembly.-When the public security is manifestly
endangered by any such assembly and no Executive Magistrate can be communicated with, any commissioned
or gazetted officer of the armed forces may disperse such assembly with the help of the armed forces under his
command, and may arrest and confine any persons forming part of it, in order to disperse such assembly or that
they may be punished according to law; but if, while he is acting under this section, it becomes practicable for
him to communicate with an Executive Magistrate, he shall do so, and shall thenceforward obey the instructions
of the Magistrate, as to whether he shall or shall not continue such action.
52
Appendix 8
Punjab Police Rules, 1934
Use Of Force Against Crowds: (1) Instructions regarding the use of force by the police against
crowds are as follows:The use of force by the Police is regulated entirely by the provisions of the law. Those provisions are
contained in Chapter V (especially Section 46 and 50), and Chapter IX (especially Sections 127 and
128) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The main principle to be observed is that the degree of force employed shall be regulated according
to the circumstances of each case. The object of the use of force is to quell a disturbance of the
peace, or to disperse an assembly which threatens such disturbance and has either refused to
disperse or shows a determination not to disperse; no ulterior objects, such as punitive or repressive
effect, shall be taken into consideration.
All attempts to disperse a crowd by warning, exhortation, etc, shall be made before it is declared an
unlawful assembly and, as such, ordered to disperse. Once an order to disperse has been defied, or
when the attitude or a crowd is obviously defiant, force shall be used without hesitation. The degree of
force used shall be the minimum which the responsible officer, with the exercise of due care and
attention, decides to be necessary for the effective dispersal of the crowd and the making of such
arrests as may be desired. The degree and duration of the use of force shall be limited as much as
possible, and the least deadly weapon which the circumstances permit shall be used.
The effectiveness of force depends mainly upon the determination with which it is applied; its direction
against the most defiant section of the crowd to be dispersed and its absolute control. Failure to act
on this principle results inevitably in more force being applied and more dangerous weapons being
used than would otherwise have been necessary. It is not possible to lay down any more definite rule
as to when different methods or different weapons shall be used. The officer responsible is required to
decide this in each case on consideration of the strength and attitude of the crowd to be dispersed,
and the strength of the force available for its dispersal.
53
Appendix 9
54
55
56
Appendix 10
Vivek Vishwanath
Manager HR and IR
HMSI
Gurgaon
August 5, 2005
Dear Mr. Vivek Vishwanath,

A fact finding team of concerned citizens visited Gurgaon on July 27, 2005 to probe into the incident
that took place on July 25 in which almost 800 workers of HMSI were injured in a police lathicharge at
the Mini Secretariat in Gurgaon.
The team comprised of: R.A. Mital, Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS), Suneet Chopra, All India Agricultural
Workers Union (AIAWU), Sindhu Menon, Labour File, J. John, Labour File, Kamal Mitra Chenoy,
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Sukumar Murlidharan, Journalist, Ashish Mittal, Occupational
Health and Safety Consultancy Services, Ananya Bhattacharjee, Jobs with Justice, Ashok Choudhary,
New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) and Pallavi Mansingh, National Campaign on Labour Rights
(NCLR). The team visited the site of the demonstration and lathicharge and met a cross section of
citizens including workers of HMSI and other factories in Gurgaon.
In order to arrive at objective conclusions in its report, the team would like to integrate the perspective
of the management of HMSI on the incident, the working conditions at HMSI and its position on the
workers demands. For this purpose we request you to kindly give us the following information:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
What is the HR policy in HMSI and whether there is any other specific policy regarding
dismissals and suspensions
What were the management labour discussions and negotiations prior to June 27, 2005
What led to the mass suspension of workers on June 27, 2005
What happened after June 27, 2005
It is alleged that the management of HMSI did not recognize the union. How far is this true?
What was the settlement between the management and the Union on July 29, 2005. Whether
it is in any way similar to contract with workers in other Honda factories including those in
Japan
Whether HMSI has taken any new steps to ensure harmonious management labour relations
so that such a lock out and labour reaction does not occur again
Kindly send your response to the following address: B-89 first floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi
110017; Ph: 91-11-30927311; fax: 91-11-29545442; email: edit@labourfile.org.
Regards,
57
Pallavi Mansingh
On behalf of the Fact Finding Team
58
Appendix 11
Other Documents from the Mini Secretariat
59
A Picture of the Lathi
60
Appendix 12
Pictures of Honda Workers on July 25 evening
61
62
Pictures of Honda Workers on July 26
63

Lathicharge On Honda Workers 2005 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lathicharge On Honda Workers 2005 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lathicharge on the HMSI Workers on

July 25, 2005 in Gurgaon

A Citizens Committee Enquiry Report

Japan and Foreign Direct Investments in India

Aerial View of Factory at Manesar

Background Information On Automobile Industries

Current status of Indian Automotive Industry

Gurgaons Growth as an Industrial Town

Some Facts About HMSI

Official Name-Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

Background to the Incident on July 25, 2005

people had been suspended by May 2005.

The Incident on July 25, 2005

A smashed pillar at the Mini Secretariat, July 27, 2005

According to the official reports, 4 FIRs36 were registered in 3 Thanas:

However, HMSI has not responded.

Who is the Guilty?

Main Findings and Conclusions

Number of FDI approvals

Table II: Foreign Direct Investment Inflows: Industry-wise

Table No. III: Share of top investing countries in FDI inflows

Name of the Missing Person

Ajeet Singh Rawat

Additions from the list given by Workers

Name of the Missing Worker

Another group of workers reported Saran Dasappa to be missing.

Dear Mr. Vivek Vishwanath,

A Picture of the Lathi

Pictures of Honda Workers on July 26

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen