NHRC asks UP government to give monetary relief to the families of a fire tragedy in Saharanpur
New Delhi March 20, 2008
The National Human Rights Commission has held the UP government accountable for failure of obligation and asked it to give monetary relief to 11 families which lost their bread earners in an explosion which took place in a cracker factory in Saharanpur on October 18, 2004. The Commission in its order said since the concerned authorities or the employers were negligent in preventing the violation of human rights of the workers and they did not even deposit the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the State becomes more liable. The Commission also said that the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation appeared to have forgotten the obligation to protect the Workmen and give relief to their families. They left the workers at the mercy of the employer. The illiterate workers and their families may not have even known that they were entitled to compensation and how to get it.
The explosion in the cracker factory at Rakesh Cinema Road, Saharanpur, was brought to the Commission’s notice by Shri Jitendra Singh, Convenor, Campaign Against Child Labour. A police report was forwarded to the Commission by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, while another report was received from Labour Commissioner, UP. Both the reports revealed that FIR was registered against the proprietor/manager of the factory. One of the reports further revealed that adequate fire extinguishing equipment was not installed in the factory. The other report highlighted that the factory was not registered under the Shop and Establishment Act and had started functioning only two months before the incident. The report further said that the employer had not deposited the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the dependants of the victims were advised to file claims.
While dealing with the case, the Commission said that “a claim for monetary relief may arise from careless performance of statutory duty resulting in negligence in discharge of statutory duties…. If the system of law fails to provide relief in damages for mal-administration, it is a skeletonised system. If individuals are to be protected adequately, a monetary relief is the necessary complement of action, which is reviewed by this Commission. Without a remedy of this nature and merely condemning the negligence or illegal action of authority will represent no more than a pyrrhic victory for an aggrieved person. The activity of the State is carried on in the interest of the entire community. If the State action or in-action results in individual damage, the State should make the redress whether or not by a fault committed by the officers concerned. The State is, in some way an insurer of what is called social risk, which is protected under law”.
The Commission further observed that the State is under a substantive protective obligation to ensure the safety of workers engaged in hazardous occupations and provide proper relief to the affected persons in the event of mishap. The Law confers sufficient powers on the State to enable it to discharge this obligation.
> While directing the State government to give monetary relief to the affected families, the Commission has given six weeks time to the State for a response.
*******
The National Human Rights Commission has held the UP government accountable for failure of obligation and asked it to give monetary relief to 11 families which lost their bread earners in an explosion which took place in a cracker factory in Saharanpur on October 18, 2004. The Commission in its order said since the concerned authorities or the employers were negligent in preventing the violation of human rights of the workers and they did not even deposit the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the State becomes more liable. The Commission also said that the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation appeared to have forgotten the obligation to protect the Workmen and give relief to their families. They left the workers at the mercy of the employer. The illiterate workers and their families may not have even known that they were entitled to compensation and how to get it.
The explosion in the cracker factory at Rakesh Cinema Road, Saharanpur, was brought to the Commission’s notice by Shri Jitendra Singh, Convenor, Campaign Against Child Labour. A police report was forwarded to the Commission by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, while another report was received from Labour Commissioner, UP. Both the reports revealed that FIR was registered against the proprietor/manager of the factory. One of the reports further revealed that adequate fire extinguishing equipment was not installed in the factory. The other report highlighted that the factory was not registered under the Shop and Establishment Act and had started functioning only two months before the incident. The report further said that the employer had not deposited the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the dependants of the victims were advised to file claims.
While dealing with the case, the Commission said that “a claim for monetary relief may arise from careless performance of statutory duty resulting in negligence in discharge of statutory duties…. If the system of law fails to provide relief in damages for mal-administration, it is a skeletonised system. If individuals are to be protected adequately, a monetary relief is the necessary complement of action, which is reviewed by this Commission. Without a remedy of this nature and merely condemning the negligence or illegal action of authority will represent no more than a pyrrhic victory for an aggrieved person. The activity of the State is carried on in the interest of the entire community. If the State action or in-action results in individual damage, the State should make the redress whether or not by a fault committed by the officers concerned. The State is, in some way an insurer of what is called social risk, which is protected under law”.
The Commission further observed that the State is under a substantive protective obligation to ensure the safety of workers engaged in hazardous occupations and provide proper relief to the affected persons in the event of mishap. The Law confers sufficient powers on the State to enable it to discharge this obligation.
> While directing the State government to give monetary relief to the affected families, the Commission has given six weeks time to the State for a response.
*******