Meanwhile the General Secretary of the West Bengal Committee of the CITU Mr. Chittabrata Majumdar told a Press conference in the city during the day that the CITU wanted a clear proposal from the owners for revival of Dunlop. It was not clear to the CITU what actually the Dunlop management wanted to do with the factory.

On Monday, the INTUC leader came to Writers' Building with the intention of discussing the Dunlop issue with Jyoti Basu. At the meeting the State's Finance Minister Dr. Ashim Dasgupta was also present. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee proposed to Basu to call a tripartite meeting on Dunlop where both the INTUC and the CITU would be represented. Basu however, told Mr. Mukherjee that the government of India would have to take over Dunlop under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956, and thereafter hand over the management of the company on an ad hoc basis to the West Bengal Government.

Basu said that he would be going to Delhi on June 14 to attend the politburo meeting of the CPI (M). His discussion on Dunlop with the Prime Minister is scheduled for the next day. Meanwhile, Chittabrata Majumdar said that it was imperative that the Dunlop management spells out its stand on the revival of the company. Of course, they would have to convey their decision to the State Government immediately. He told reporters that the workers and employees of Dunlop were agreeable to take the initiative in reopening the factory. The State Government too would lend full support to the workers. Unfortunately, there was no move on the part of the management of Dunlop in this direction. Majumdar said it was not clear to the workers if the management wanted a revival package for the company. It was also not clear to the workers if the management wanted a revival scheme of its own being implemented. In this context Majumdar criticised the Centre saying that the Dunlop imbroglio would have been settled much earlier had the centre been serious about it. He said that the situation would not have been so critical had the Government of India handed over the management of the company to the West Bengal Government after taking over the unit and before sending the issue to the BIFR.

According to Majumdar, Dunlop was never a sick unit even the BIFR has been compelled to accept this. The principal problem affecting the company was dearth of working capital.

There was no truth in the management propaganda that the industrial relations were strained in Dunlop. In reply to a question Majumdar said that the management of Dunlop had defaulted in paying the worker's wages months on end aggravating tension among them. Thus was natural on the part of the workers to express their resentment. But this could not be interpreted as non-cooperation from workers. Rather proofs were now available showing that the management misappropriated the company's funds. After Dunlop closed down, at a meeting with the Chief Minister Jyoti Basu representative of banks which had earlier advanced loans to the company's management wanted details of expenditure of loan amount made available to them. But the owners of the company till date could not submit reports of fund utilisation. Majumdar said that not only workers, lending institutions could no longer repose faith in Chhabrias, the owners of the company. Instead of taking the necessary initiative to reopen the factory, the management or the Chhabrias were now trying to sell the assets of the company. They have even prepared a revival plan, which envisages retrenchment of 3,000 workers at one go. The Chhabrias were trying to get 'their' revival scheme approved by the BIFR too. All these indicated that the owners of Dunlop had no intention to reopen the factory or its well being.

According to Majumdar, a letter delineating all the moves of the owners of Dunlop had been given to the Chief Minister on June 3. This was intended to alert the State Government about the motives of the management of the company.