|
|
|
 |
|
|
The dough is in the land, not the
bread
Siddharth Varadarajan *
Five years after privatisation,
Modern Food assets are being stripped.
- Photo: Shanker Chakravarty

A FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS: Suspended workers demonstrate in
front of Modern Food Industries in New Delhi on Sunday, May Day
IN AN interview soon after Modern Food was privatised, Arun Jaitley, who was
Disinvestment Minister at the time, declared it was not the job of the Government
to make bread. Five years later, the former PSU's new owners seem to believe
it's not their job either. The company's flagship factory is on the verge of
being shut down so the land can be used for more "productive purposes";
bread production is to be outsourced as a "low cost solution" to the
losses the company is still incurring, and the remaining employees are being
encouraged to accept a new VRS package.
This is not the way things were supposed to have gone. The January 2000 sale
of Modern Food Industries Ltd (MFIL) to HLL — subsidiary of FMCG multinational
Unilever — was hailed by the erstwhile BJP-led National Democratic Alliance
Government as a landmark event that would establish a new paradigm in the revival
of inefficient public sector companies. "It is a success story inasmuch
as all jobs have been saved and an attempt has been made to revive a loss-making
unit," Mr. Jaitley told the Rajya Sabha soon after. So carried away by
his salesman-like zeal was he that at the end of May 2000 he told The Hindu
employment would actually go up in the company.
He couldn't have been more mistaken.
When HLL took charge of Modern Food, the total number of employees was 2,037.
The PSU also owned nearly 4,50,000 square metres of prime land in cities across
India, including Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore, and Kolkata. Today, it is
not clear how many workers the company still employs. What we do know is that
as of August 31, 2003, the numbers were down by 51 per cent to 1,007. (Reply
to Lok Sabha unstarred question by Arun Shourie, December 3, 2003). With the
company pushing another round of VRS, especially in Delhi, the union now estimates
there are less than 700 workers remaining. It says a majority of MFIL's 21 units
have been closed and alleges bread is being produced by contract labour in outsourced
"sweatshops."
Not by bread alone
As for MFIL's land, one 8,000 sq metre plot in Bangalore has been sold for
Rs.2.48 crore and a 20,000 sq metre plot in Faridabad on Mathura Road outside
Delhi is currently on offer. Chesterton Meghraj, the property dealers handling
the sale, say the plot is likely to sell for around Rs.15-20 crore. According
to the Modern Food Industries Employees Union, the company's move to get its
land on Lawrence Road, Delhi — where its main bread unit is located —
converted to freehold is also the prelude to its eventual sale as real estate.
Even as it is selling its land holdings in and around Delhi, MFIL placed an
advertisement last month seeking to rent industrial premises for setting up
a bread manufacturing unit. Asked about this anomaly, an HLL spokesman told
The Hindu , "Lawrence Rd is a costly location for a bread factory, when
one takes into account all costs... It was therefore decided that it would be
in the best interests of the company if the losses incurred by the unit could
be stopped and all assets deployed for productive purposes."
The main asset to be redeployed, of course, is land. When MFIL was privatised
— 74 per cent of its equity was first sold to HLL for Rs.105.45 crore,
and the remaining 26 per cent handed over for Rs.44 crore — the union,
independent analysts and several MPs from the Left and the Congress (including
Manmohan Singh) had alleged the land had not been valued correctly and might
alone be worth much more than the Rs.150 crore paid by HLL for MFIL. The NDA
sought to refute allegations of undervaluation and assured its critics the new
owners would not be able to dispose of the land as they liked. Estimates of
high land value are "somewhat misleading," Jaswant Singh told the
Rajya Sabha on April 27, 2000, as Leader of the House. "Land is there only
notionally. It is leasehold land. It is meant specifically for the function,
it is specifically for the purpose of food processing."
HLL in default?
Officials and Ministers also put the word out that the Shareholders Agreement
between HLL and the Government of India made it mandatory for the new owners
of Modern Food to obtain government approval for any sale of MFIL's land for
a specified period, even after the entire government equity is divested. This
assurance was widely reported at the time and not contradicted by anybody. Speaking
in the Lok Sabha on August 14, 2003, Mr. Shourie too hinted that HLL was not
free to do as it pleased. "The employees of MFIL have... alleged that the
Strategic Partner had sold assets and discontinued the bakery business in violation
of the terms of the Shareholders Agreement, which will be gone into by the Fact-Finding
Committee [set up by the Prime Minister]," he assured the House. This statement
was made after the Government had already sold its remaining 26 per cent stake
in Modern Food to HLL.
Asked last week by The Hindu whether HLL had sought prior approval from the
Government for the sale of the Faridabad and other properties, a company spokesman
denied this was necessary. "There is no pre-condition regarding sale of
land or for that matter the sale of any of the assets of MFIL, as the final
sale of Government of India shares in MFIL to HLL was an unconditional and purely
commercial transaction."
HLL also denies it has any plans of quitting the bread-making business and
says the land is being sold to retire debt. "HLL/MFIL is committed to turning
around MFIL," the company spokesman insisted. "It is our intention
to reduce the losses at our loss-making bread units, and indeed Delhi is our
highest loss-making unit... Accordingly, unviable operations at any location
will be placed under a close business scrutiny, and if outsourcing is indeed
the appropriate low-cost solution, this will be resorted to."
Whatever the spin, the sale of land and the closure of units suggest HLL sees
greater value in MFIL's underlying assets than in its core business of making
bread. The irony is that the previous government anticipated this problem. "Perhaps
the biggest concern on the part of the government in case of strategic sale
of PSUs is that of asset stripping by the strategic partner (SP)," a Department
of Disinvestment website document on strategic sale agreements states. "Most
of the PSUs have valuable assets in the shape of plant and machinery, land,
buildings etc. The SP may well dispose of these assets, make money on that and
quit, leaving another sick industry behind... Therefore a clause on affirmative
rights of government in case of sale etc. of assets after takeover should exist."
To give the devil his due, this added caution on behalf of the DoD and its
two erstwhile Ministers, Mr. Jaitley and Mr. Shourie, might well have been an
afterthought given the bad experience of Modern. But what is unacceptable is
the way in which whistleblowers were victimised by the company and dismissed
by Ministers as troublemakers. Right from the start, union leaders like Gobind
Yadav, V.K. Narang, and Ganesh Thakur had cautioned the Government that the
new owners were not interested in reviving Modern Food. Mr. Yadav was suspended
by MFIL's management and dismissed in 2002. However, he has since won his case
in the labour court and the Delhi High Court has ordered MFIL to reinstate him
with back wages.
At the end of the day, the story of India's first full-scale privatisation
is not a happy one. The employees say that since the purpose of the privatisation
has not been served, MFIL should once again be nationalised. At a minimum, they
say, the sale of land without government clearance — though HLL says this
is not needed — might well constitute an "event of default",
allowing the Government to "buy back" MFIL's shares at 25 per cent
less than the sale price. Whatever the Manmohan Singh Government decides, this
much is clear: old free market dogmas like privatisation aren't panaceas. When
the policy is past its sell-by date, the bread it produces is also likely to
be stale.
*Kind courtsey of The Hindu (5 May 2005)
|