The Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to rehabilitate 700 worker families arbitrarily evicted and rendered jobless by the abrupt closure of the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited (BBTCL), which has been operating the Manjolai tea estate since 1929. A bench comprising Justices N Sathish Kumar and D Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the order on Tuesday, December 3, while hearing a batch of public interest litigations (PIL) seeking to protect the rights of the estate workers and restore forest cover.
Directing the government to provide the workers' families with free housing and access to education and employment opportunities, the court also tasked the Labour and Skill Development Department to ensure that the company pays ex-gratia compensation to them. The bench further ordered the ecological restoration of the estate lands, which are part of the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, to enhance wildlife habitats. The court also said that estate workers cannot be considered as forest dwellers, rejecting their plea to avail land under
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
The Manjolai estate workers’ protests began on May 30, 2024, when the BBTCL abruptly announced its decision to cease functioning. The workers, most of them Dalits, were asked to vacate the five villages – Manjolai, Kakkachi, Naalumukku, Oothu and Kuthiraivetti – collectively called Manjolai Estates, located at an altitude ranging between 1,034 and 1,400 meters. The company also asked the workers to accept a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), vacate their homes, and collect their dues and bonuses.
But the workers protested the arbitrary eviction and refused to vacate their homes. They sought the government to intervene and take over the estate under the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited (TANTEA), a state government undertaking that was established in 1968 to rehabilitate Sri Lankan repatriates by employing them. Several workers moved the Madras High Court with the same demands. Puthiya Tamilagam (PT) K Krishnaswamy also moved the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) alleging human rights violations towards the workers. On December 2, the NHRC said that an on-the-spot investigation revealed disruptions in essential facilities including water, electricity, medical access, transportation, rations, and education by BBTCL and further directed the state government to ensure basic amenities to the families.
In a significant directive, the court supported the Tamil Nadu government's decision to maintain the area as a reserve forest. Considering the importance of the reserve forest, the closure of the tea plantation business, and the state's conscious decision not to use the area for any commercial activities, including ecotourism, the court said that “the entire area should be maintained as pristine forest with flora and fauna and no commercial activities including ecotourism shall be undertaken by the State Government so that the entire landscape would be a model to the state of Tamil Nadu.”
Arguments in court
The state government submitted that it has come up with a detailed proposal for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the plantation workers. Advocate general PS Raman, appearing for the state government, submitted that 240 houses that were built by TNUHD Board in Pappangul of Ambasamudram and 150 apartment houses in Redyarpatti of Tirunelveli are readily available for allotment to the Manjolai tea plantation workers on a priority basis. The court directed that the government shall build houses for other workers in an expeditious manner.
Meanwhile, the Managing Director of Tea Plantation Corporation (TANTEA) informed the court that the government taking over the estate is not feasible since the area was declared a tiger sanctuary in 2012 and it has been declared a reserve forest in 2018.
The company contended that it was running under losses for several years and even then, it continued operation “with great difficulty” to support its employees. It also claimed that there was no force, threat or coercion used by the BBTCL, and that the discussions were smooth. The company added that the opting of VRS was purely voluntary and clearly communicated.
‘Estate workers not forest dwellers’
Some estate workers moved the court seeking to consider them as forest dwellers and allot four hectares of land to each of them. However, the court observed that the workers migrated to the
estates in Manjolai from other parts of the state or outside, and that they are governed by The Plantations Labour Act, 1951 or The Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The bench also said that to come within the purview of the forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribe, one must primarily reside inside the forest and depend on the forest or forest land for a bona fide livelihood. The bench added that to come under "other traditional forest dwellers", one must have lived there for at least three generations before December 13, 2005, according to the FRA.
“In the cases on hand, admittedly, none of the workmen primarily depend on the forest or forest land for their bonafide livelihood needs. They were actually employed by the BBTCL to work in the Tea Plantations run by it and there existed employee and employer relationships between those workers and the BBTCL… There existed a servant and master relationship between the workers and the BBTCL and the workers were never dependent on any forest produce for their bona fide livelihood,” the court said, and ruled that Manjolai estate workers cannot claim that they are forest dwellers.
‘Ecocentric approach’ precedes ‘anthropocentric approach’
The court underscored the critical importance of preserving the Agasthyamalai Biosphere, emphasising its role as a unique ecological treasure. "The area in question is a pristine forest with rich biodiversity that must be preserved for future generations. Fourteen rivers flow through the Agasthyamalai landscape, making it a vital river sanctuary. In the context of climate change and its effects, every human being has a responsibility to protect ecosystems and work towards the preservation of air, water, and land," the order noted.
Acknowledging the deep emotional ties of the workers to the land, the court expressed empathy for their predicament. "The workers and their families, who have lived on the estates for generations, would undoubtedly find it difficult to leave. Dislocation is harsh, particularly for families who have called this place home for decades," the bench observed. However, the court said that an “ecocentric approach” must take precedence over an “anthropocentric one”, aligning with the laws of nature.
“..as far as the Agasthiyar Biosphere is concerned, this is one of the little tracks of landscape on earth where biodiversity thrives. It is the home for such fauna and flora, which cannot exist anywhere else. As a matter of fact, an eco-centric approach is in a way again human-centric as without biodiversity and without the other fauna and flora, human beings alone cannot exist on the earth. Thus, the only way to understand the difficulties expressed on behalf of these workmen is to focus on their long-term future, which can only be by way of rehabilitation of these families and how best their pain of relocation can be mitigated and minimised,” the court said.
‘VRS cannot be decided by PIL’
Puthiya Tamilagam (PT) leader K Krishnasamy alleged in his petition that BBTCL forced workers to sign Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) agreements under duress, appealing to the court to intervene in the matter. The court, however, ruled that the issue of whether the workers voluntarily signed the VRS agreements or were coerced could not be adjudicated in these writ petitions. "If at all the workers have any grievance over the agreements entered into with BBTCL, they can redress their grievances before the appropriate forum," the bench stated. It noted that the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Plantations) was already addressing the issue, and the amounts payable under the VRS had been deposited by the company.
The court clarified that workers must pursue their grievances individually through legal avenues provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947, or other applicable laws. It emphasised that no individual could represent the collective cause of the workers in such matters via public interest litigation.
"In light of the discussions, the issue regarding the VRS is left open to be decided by the appropriate forum in accordance with law," the court’s order noted.
Main directions passed to the government
The main directions passed to the state government are:
provide pattas to homeless workers who want to settle in rural areas free of cost and extend financial support to build individual houses under the "Kalaingar Kanavu Illam" scheme by relaxing the existing government norms as a special case;
ensure that appropriate financial support is extended to the displaced workers;
provide skill training through the Tamil Nadu Skill Development Corporation and the Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelihood Mission for eligible workers and their family members;
make arrangements to provide appropriate employment opportunities in the private sector to those workers on their completion of skill training;
take necessary steps to ensure that students studying at Government Schools are admitted to the government schools of their choice and accommodate them in the government hostels on a priority basis so that their education will not be affected;
ensure that the workers are issued with Family Cards, Aadhaar Cards,and Voter Identity Cards to the addresses where they want to settle by conducting special camps.
The court said that the government should take all the steps to make sure that the rehabilitation and resettlement schemes are “scrupulously implemented”.
