Actors paid ₹300 crore while technicians earn less than ₹3,000, FEFSI tells Madras High Court
Appearing before Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, advocate G. Mohanakrishnan, representing FEFSI, said, members of TFPC were also trying to 'snatch the livelihood' of technicians in Tamil Nadu by attempting to employ people from other States to complete ongoing projects.
On the other hand, advocate Krishna Ravindran, representing TFPC, stated that a majority of the members of the council were small-budget moviemakers and not corporate filmmakers who make big-budget movies. He said, TFPC was equally concerned about the technicians.
The counsel said, TFPC had been following the practice of entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) once in three years with FEFSI with respect to the fixation of wages for technicians and also other service conditions. The last MoU, signed in 2022, ended on March 9, 2025.
In the meantime, FEFSI suspected TFPC of having promoted a rival association of technicians named Tamil Nadu Thiraipada Thozhilalargal Sammelanam, and issued a communication to all its 23 affiliated associations on April 2, 2025, asking them not to cooperate with the members of TFPC.
Asserting that TFPC had nothing to do with the rival association of technicians, Mr. Ravindran said, ever since FEFSI issued the non-cooperation communication to its affiliated associations, the technicians were refusing to work for the ongoing film projects, thereby causing great monetary loss to the producers.
Minister to hold talks
He also said FEFSI had now begun to work with another body titled Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA), and that the issue had become so serious that Minister for Information and Publicity M.P. Saminathan had decided to intervene and hold talks between the parties to resolve the impasse.
After hearing both sides, Justice Babu made it clear that he could not compel the members of FEFSI to work with TFPC since the MoU had expired on March 9, 2025. At the same time, he warned that TFPC members could always initiate legal action against individual members of FEFSI for violation of work agreements.
Therefore, he suggested it would be in the interest of both parties to resolve their differences across the table. The judge asked Mr. Mohanakrishnan and Mr. Ravindran to submit by Wednesday (July 2) a couple of names of retired judges of the High Court who could be appointed as a mediator.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21-07-2025
- Indian Express
Death of a stuntman: It's about time there were safety standards for film sets
During the making of Pa Ranjith's upcoming film Vettuvam, stuntman S Mohanraj died while performing a car toppling sequence. A video clip capturing the accident made it to the news, greatly shocking anyone who watched it. The film industry regards Mohanraj, a veteran with over three decades of experience, as a specialist in performing car stunts, and it wasn't the first time he was executing such a stunt. A day after the demise, filmmaker Pa Ranjith issued a heartfelt condolence message while also clarifying that safety protocols had been in place and precautions had been taken as advised by the stunt experts. The case probably gained widespread attention as a video clip capturing the fatal accident was shared by someone present on the film set. But such deaths during film shoots are not as rare as might be imagined, although in the absence of similar video evidence, they hardly make news. Last year, in another high profile film, Sardar 2 starring actor Karthi, a stuntman died in an accident. Much earlier, in 2020, during the shoot of filmmaker Shankar's Indian 2, starring Kamal Haasan, three individuals — an assistant director, an art assistant and a production assistant — were killed while mounting a heavy-duty light on a crane, while another 10 were injured. It is important to note that the three individuals were killed not during a risky stunt sequence, but merely during the erection of a set. Film Employees Federation of South India (FEFSI) president RK Selvamani stated that between Indian 2 and Sardar 2, as many as 20 stuntmen have been killed in on-set accidents. However, these deaths hardly make it to the news, except in the case of high profile films. While senior stunt masters have repeatedly pressed for better safety standards, they have also invoked the Tamil saying 'Karanam thappinal maranam (Death is assured, even in the case of a small slip)', reflecting an internalised readiness to accept the risk of death as intrinsic to the job. Ideally, FEFSI should be pressing producers to implement better safety standards for all stunt sequences performed in the industry. Thus far, however, there has not been much pressure on producers or the producers' council on this matter — given the way power is skewed in the industry, FEFSI is forced to save its negotiating edge to handle several other workers' issues. In such a situation, the onus to maintain the safety standards ends up on the stuntperson performing the risky action sequence. We have to remember here that most stuntpersons aren't formally trained or qualified to certify the safety standards of their own performances. Many of them, in fact, willingly put their own lives at enormous risk to ensure the sustenance of their families and themselves. In the event of their death, compensation is handed out — in the case of the Indian 2 incident, Shankar, Kamal Haasan and Lyca Productions handed over Rs 4 crore to the families of the deceased. But this cannot be the model for how the film industry functions. Handing out huge sums to the families of deceased stuntpersons cannot take the place of continuous investments and maintenance of better safety standards for all. As long as the current model works out economically, the industry will continue to function in the same way. The only solution is for the State or Union government to institute a Film Set Safety Standard Board that would inspect every film set and issue certificates based on the safety standards maintained. Such a board should be adequately equipped with manpower and expertise to examine, understand and advise on the safety standards of the film set or stunt sequences performed. And it should be made mandatory to get a clearance from the board to ensure the public release of a film. There was a time when film productions received backlash for mistreating animals during shoots. But today, to use animals in films or advertisements in India, filmmakers need to obtain pre-shoot permission and post-shoot clearance from the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). And this has to a great extent ensured the ethical treatment of animals during film shoots. It is high time that safety standards are put in place, and enforced, so that stuntpersons don't have to place themselves in harmful situations to ensure that the audience gets the adrenaline rush it craves. The writer is a Chennai-based filmmaker
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Time of India
When Samantha Ruth Prabhu openly questioned genuineness of ex husband Naga Chaitanya's proposal: 'Say it like you mean it'
and 's relationship never fails to make headlines, as fans still feel heartbroken about their divorce in 2021. Chay and were seen attending an interview in the past, where the 'Thandel' actor was asked to propose to Samantha. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It was her reply that went viral on social media after their separation. Samantha Ruth Prabhu's reaction to Naga Chaitanya's proposal In the clip, which appears to be from an old TFPC interview, Naga hesitantly tried to propose to her, and Samantha teasingly demanded, "Say it like you mean it." Eventually, he gathered his nerves and sincerely uttered, "Samantha, I love you from the bottom of my heart." Did Samantha Ruth Prabhu avoid Naga Chaitanya during a recent event? Here's what we know However, Samantha didn't let the moment pass without a cheeky remark. She asked the anchor of the show, "Did you believe it? I didn't buy it." About Naga Chaitanya and Samantha Ruth Prabhu's love, marriage and divorce The former couple first met on the sets of Ye Maaya Chesave, which was Samantha's acting debut, and they began dating shortly afterwards. They tied the knot in 2017 and announced their separation in 2021. Samantha opened up about her emotional journey in various interviews, especially addressing the swirling rumours around alimony. On the other hand, Naga Chaitanya maintained a dignified silence and never spoke ill of Samantha. Samantha was later diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, myositis, the year after their divorce and took a hiatus from the industry. Naga Chaitanya married Sobhita Dhulipala Naga Chaitanya tied the knot with actress Sobhita Dhulipala in a traditional wedding ceremony in 2024. Samantha's work front Samantha is currently busy shooting for her upcoming movie Rakt Brahmand: The Bloody Kingdom from Raj & DK. She will also make a comeback to the Telugu industry with Maa Inti Bangaram.
Indian Express
01-07-2025
- Indian Express
Standoff in Tamil cinema disrupts several productions, High Court calls for mediation
A long-simmering conflict in the Tamil film industry, between producers and technicians, reached a crucial moment on Monday as the Madras High Court declined to issue interim relief against a non-cooperation protest launched by the technicians. In the conflict between the Tamil Film Producers Council (TFPC) and the Film Employees Federation of South India (FEFSI), Justice K Kumaresh Babu, hearing a civil suit filed by TFPC against FEFSI, suggested that both parties recommend names of retired High Court judges who could be appointed as neutral mediators. The court has given until Wednesday for both sides to submit names. The producers had sought a stay on the FEFSI's protest, which has disrupted multiple ongoing film productions in the state. The FEFSI, an umbrella body representing 24 technicians' and film workers' unions, has been at loggerheads with the TFPC since the expiry of a three-year MoU on March 9. The MoU governed wages, working conditions, and cooperative norms between producers and technicians. In court, FEFSI's legal counsel, advocate G Mohanakrishnan, painted a stark picture of inequality in the Tamil film industry. 'Top actors are paid Rs 300 crore per movie, while technicians struggle to get even Rs 3,000 a day,' he argued, calling the situation untenable and exploitative. He further alleged that TFPC was attempting to undermine the livelihoods of Tamil Nadu-based technicians by importing workers from other states to continue film shoots stalled by the impasse. The producers' side, represented by advocate Krishna Ravindran, countered that TFPC comprises mainly small-budget filmmakers — not the few mega-budget producers driving exorbitant salaries for actors. He emphasised that TFPC had followed a consistent practice of signing MoUs with FEFSI every three years and was willing to renew the agreement, but was met with hostility and allegations instead. Central to the producers' grievance is the charge that FEFSI's protest has brought the industry to a standstill. 'Ongoing production works have been stalled, resulting in major financial losses,' said Ravindran. 'Technicians affiliated with FEFSI are refusing to cooperate, jeopardising the livelihood of hundreds of others involved in film projects,' he alleged. In April, the federation issued a circular to all its 23 affiliated unions, asking them not to cooperate with TFPC members. The move came after FEFSI accused TFPC of secretly backing a rival technicians' association — Tamil Nadu Thiraipada Thozhilalargal Sammelanam — in what it believes is an effort to splinter the organised workforce. The producers deny any link to the new association. 'TFPC has no involvement in setting up any rival union,' said Ravindran. But he did acknowledge that the deadlock had pushed some producers to explore working with a separate body, the Tamil Film Active Producers Association (TFAPA), as a workaround to continue stalled projects. As the impasse deepens, the Tamil Nadu government has taken note. Minister for Information and Publicity, M P Saminathan, is expected to step in to mediate talks, underlining the growing public and political pressure to resolve the conflict. In court, Justice Babu was firm in his observation that he could not compel FEFSI to resume work with TFPC, given that the binding MoU had lapsed. However, he did note that individual producers could pursue legal action if existing work agreements had been violated. He also expressed concern that both sides risk further erosion of goodwill and financial damage if the matter is not resolved swiftly. With both FEFSI and TFPC expected to submit their recommended names for a retired High Court judge to mediate, the coming week will be critical for whether this is going to be a step toward reconciliation or a deeper institutional rupture in Tamil cinema's labour landscape.
