Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ...
on 6 December, 2022
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal
Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Dipankar Datta, Abhay Ahuja
4-PIL.115.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 115 OF 2022
OHSSAI (Occupational Health, }
Safety, Sustainability Association }
India) Foundation } Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary, }
Ministry-Department of Labour, }
Government of Maharashtra }
and Ors. } Respondents
Dr. Suresh T. Mane for the petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader
with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2022
P.C.:
1. This petition, styled as a public interest litigation (PIL), is at the instance of OHSSAI
(Occupational Health, Safety, Sustainability Association India) Foundation, through its founder
President and General Secretary. By instituting the PIL, appropriate writ/order/direction is sought
from this Court to the respondents with regard to the "role, responsibility of the 'Safety
Officers'/professionals engaged in all establishments all over Maharashtra and especially the Safety
Officers responsibility (sic., responsible) in the matters of police cases due to some wrongful acts
done by company or factory or by establishment/management". The respondents in J.V.Salunke,PS
4-PIL.115.2022 the writ petition are: (i) Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Government of
Maharashtra; (ii) Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health; (iii) Commissioner of Labour,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 1
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
Government of Maharashtra; and (iv) Director General of Police, Maharashtra State.
2. The trigger for the PIL is an incident referred to in paragraph 4(F) of the petition memo. We
quote the same hereunder: -
"4(F) However, with great pain and anguish, the Petitioner would like to place before
the Hon. Court that, the Petitioner through newspaper report published in Times of
India came to know about an accident that occurred in the month of February 2022,
in Pune city wherein in the crash of under construction site near Wadia Banglow,
Shastrinagar, Yerwada, five construction workers dead and five were injured. The
accident occurred when a huge galvanized steel wire mesh for reinforced concrete
slab that was to cover the basement of the structure, caved in and trapped the
victims".
3. Referring to the provisions of section 40B of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereafter "the 1948 Act", for
short) as well as the Maharashtra Safety Officers (Duties, Qualification and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1982 (hereafter "the Rules of 1982", for short), it is claimed that the role of the Safety Officers
is purely of "advisory nature" [paragraph 4(E)]. It is further claimed that the duty of the Safety
Officers is to advise and assist the employer/factory management in the fulfilment of the
obligations, statutory or otherwise, concerning prevention of personal injuries and maintaining a
safe working environment. At the under-construction site crash, which happened in Pune, the safety
engineer/officer Mr. Imtiaz Abdul Barkat Ansari, aged 38 years old, along with J.V.Salunke,PS
4-PIL.115.2022 three others was arrested by the Yerwada Police Station with a case of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder and other charges and since then, he has been in jail/police
custody [para 4(G)]
4. It is also claimed that the role of the safety officers is merely of advisory nature, yet, in the above
cited case and such other cases of any unfortunate accident occurring in future, the arrest of the
Safety Officers could be avoided and if a preliminary investigation is conducted and it is found that
the Safety Officer is responsible for negligence, only then he should be arrested by the police [para
4(H)].
5. Other relevant paragraphs of the writ petition read as follows: -
"5. The Petitioner organisation, being pained by Pune unfortunate accident as well as
deeply hurt by the police action against the safety officer, on 07/03/2022, has
submitted a representation to the Commissioner of Labour Department of Labour,
Government of Maharashtra, bringing to his notice the unfortunate accident of crash
of under construction site at Pune, wherein the safety officer has been arrested,
requesting him for his urgent intervention in the matter of arrest of the safety officer
on the pattern of the intervention by the Dy. Director of Factories and Boilers, Jaipur
vide his communication dt. 07/08/2010 to the Inspector In- Charge of Jakhapur
police St. Highlighting the clear advisory role and responsibility of the safety officer,
as per the Orissa Factories Rules.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 2
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
8. The Petitioner foundation, thereafter on such an important and serious issue had
its meeting on March 25, 2022 at its registered office and after pondering over the
existing rules and regulations and considering occurrence of such incidents in future,
in the interest of public/workers as a whole as well as to protect the noble profession
of Safety Officers and every management should take up the issue of safety seriously,
decided to approach the Hon'ble Court through the PIL for J.V.Salunke,PS
4-PIL.115.2022 necessary guidelines/directions or orders to all concern- the
Companies, Police about the significance of safety measures and role and
responsibility of safety officers as laid own in Government Rules and Regulations."
6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, reliefs have been claimed as follows: -
"B. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct all the respondents, to inform all
concern about the significance of safety measures to be followed in every
establishment and the advisory role of the Safety Officers. C. That this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4, the DGP of Maharashtra State to issue the
necessary directions to all police stations brining (sic., bringing) to their notice the
Advisory role of Safety Officers under the Acts, Rules and Regulations."
7. Appearing in support of the PIL, Dr. Mane, learned advocate, refers to the statutory provisions
contained in the Factories Act as well as in the Rules of 1982 and the Maharashtra Building and
Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007
(hereafter "the Rules of 2007", for short) to argue that the role of the Safety Officers being purely
advisory in nature, such Safety Officers ought not to be prosecuted for failure on the part of the
employers of such officers/factory management to ensure safety and health at the respective work
place.
8. It is the further contention of Dr. Mane that where number of employees or workers are engaged,
it is the duty of the company/factory owner/establishment to have such work executed in safe
working conditions taking care of the safety of the employees so that any accident of similar nature
as the one in Pune [referred to in para 4(G)] can be avoided.
J.V.Salunke,PS 4-PIL.115.2022
9. In course of hearing, Dr. Mane has invited our attention to page 39 of the writ petition, which is a
letter from the Deputy Director of Factories and Boilers, Jajpur Road Division, Jajpur Road, District
Jajpur, Orissa dated 7th August 2010 addressed to the Inspector In-Charge, Jakhapura Police
Station, District Jajpur. Since Dr. Mane has urged us to direct the Directorate of Industrial Safety
and Health to issue directions as contained in such communication, we consider it appropriate to
quote the same below: -
"Sir, It has been learned from the Management of few Kalinganagar Industries that
you are inquiring about the duties and responsibilities of the Safety Officers
appointed in the factory as per the statutory provisions of the Factories Act in
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 3
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
connection with some factory related accidents.
In this connection I would like to bring it to your knowledge that;
1. A Safety officer is appointed in a factory as per Section 40B of the Factories Act
1948 and Rules 61-A of Orissa Factories Rules 1950.
2. The duties of the safety officers are purely advisory in nature who will constantly
advised the management as regards to planning, organizing, job safety studies,
purchasing high quality safety equipment, advise for plant safety inspection, advise
on matter related to reporting to statutory authorities regarding accidents,
investigation of selected accidents, advise on maintenance of statutory records on
accidents and dangerous occurrence to advice and conduct safety promotional
activities like safety committee, organize campaigns, competitions, contests in the
matter of safety and to design and conduct suitable training and educational
programme etc. It has been further noticed that few managements are fixing
responsibility on a safety officer in case J.V.Salunke,PS 4-PIL.115.2022 of any
accidents and dangerous occurrence without going through the details of the subject
which is not correct.
Under such circumstances I request you in case of any such incidents kindly do not
hesitate to ask undersigned for clarification on the matter."
10. Next, Dr. Mane places reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 23rd September 2019 in Crl. P. No. 6274 of 2016 (Allaiah and Anr. vs.
State of Karnataka and Anr.) in support of the contention that vicarious liability cannot be fastened
on Safety Officers for negligence on the part of the factory manager resulting in any accident.
11. Dr. Mane also contends that guidelines should be issued by this Court so that prior to registration
of an offence leading to arrest of a Safety Officer, a preliminary investigation is conducted to fix
accountability.
12. Dr. Mane, thus, prays that for protecting the interest of the Safety Officers, whose role is merely
advisory, the Court may issue appropriate guidelines so that unnecessary and unwarranted arrests
can be avoided.
13. Having heard the contentions raised by Dr. Mane with the attention and seriousness the same
deserve, we find no reason to call upon the respondents to answer such contentions.
14. Section 40B of the 1948 Act provides for employing Safety Officers, reading as follows: -
"40B. Safety Officers. --(1) In every factory--
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 4
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
(i) wherein one thousand or more workers are ordinarily employed, or
J.V.Salunke,PS 4-PIL.115.2022
(ii) wherein, in the opinion of the State Government, any manufacturing process or
operation is carried on, which process or operation involves any risk of bodily injury,
poisoning or disease, or any other hazard to health, to the persons employed in the
factory, the occupier shall, if so, required by the State Government by notification in
the Official Gazette, employ such number of Safety Officers as may be specified in
that notification.
(2) The duties, qualifications and conditions of service of Safety Officers shall be such
as may be prescribed by the State Government.".
15. Thus, Safety Officers are required to be employed in every factory where more than a thousand
workers are ordinarily employed or as and when a notification is issued under sub-section (1) of
section 40B of the 1948 Act by the State Government. In terms of the Rules of 1982, recruitment of
safety officers would be guided by Rule 5. A process of selection is envisaged therein. The
qualifications required for appointment as Safety Officer are provided under Rule 3. For facility of
reference, we quote sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1982 hereunder: -
"3. Qualifications and disqualifications for being appointed as Safety Officer (1) a
person shall not be eligible for appointment as a Safety Officer unless he-
(a) Possesses a degree in any branch of engineering or technology, and practical
experience of working in any factory in a supervisory capacity for a period of not less
than two years, or experience of not less than five years in training education,
consultancy or research in accident prevention in any industry; or J.V.Salunke,PS
4-PIL.115.2022
(b) Possesses, -
(i) a degree in physics or chemistry or a diploma in any branch of engineering or
technology; and
(ii) practical experience of working in any factory in a supervisory capacity for a
period of not less than five years; and
(c) possesses adequate knowledge of Marathi language.
(2) No person shall be continued as a Safety officer unless he possesses any of the
requisite qualifications prescribed in sub-rule (1) and a diploma in industrial safety,
or obtains such qualifications or a diploma within the period of not more than three
years from the appointed day or within such period thereafter as the State
Government may by notification in the Official Gazette fix from time to time:
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 5
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
Provided that the State Government may, subject to such conditions as it may specify,
relax all or any of the requisite qualifications mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2) in
favour of any person who has been working as a Safety Officer in any factory for a
period of not less than five years on the appointed day and who, in the opinion of the
State Government, possesses such practical experience as may be sufficient for his
serving as a Safety Officer."
16. The duties of Safety Officers are to be found in Rule 8, reading as follows: -
"8. Duties of Safety Officers (1) The duties of a Safety Officer shall be to advise and
assist the factory management in the fulfilment of its obligations, statutory or
otherwise, concerning prevention of personal injuries and maintaining a safe working
environment. These duties shall include the following namely: -
(i) to advise the concerned departments in planning and organising measures
necessary for the effective control of personal injuries;
J.V.Salunke,PS 4-PIL.115.2022
(ii) to advise on safety aspects in all job studies and to carry out detailed job safety studies of
selected jobs;
(iii) to check and evaluate the effectiveness of action taken or proposed to be taken to prevent
personal injuries;
(iv) to advise the purchasing and stores departments in ensuring high quality and availability of
personal protective equipment's;
(v) to advise on matters related to carrying out plant safety inspections;
(vi) to carry out plant safety inspections in order to observe the physical conditions of work and the
work practices and procedures followed by workers and to render advice on measurers to be
adopted for removing the unsafe physical conditions and preventing unsafe actions by workers;
(vii) to render advice on matters related to reporting and investigation of industrial accidents and
diseases;
(viii) to investigate selected accidents;
(ix) to investigate the dangerous occurrences reportable under Rule 115 of the Maharashtra
Factories Rules, 1963 and the cases of Industrial diseases contracted by any of the workers
employed in the factory reportable under rule 116 of the (said rules):
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 6
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
(x) to advise on the maintenance of such records as are necessary relating to
accidents, dangerous occurrences and industrial diseases;
(xi) to promote setting up of safety committees and act as adviser to such
committees;
(xii) to organise in association with the concerned departments, campaigns,
competitions, contests and other activities, which will develop and maintain the
interest of the workers in establishing and maintaining safe conditions of work and
procedures; and
(xiii) to design and conduct either independently or in collaboration with the training
department, suitable training and educational programmes for the prevention of
personal injuries.
J.V.Salunke,PS 4-PIL.115.2022 (2) No safety Officer shall be required or permitted to do any work
which is inconsistent with or detrimental to the performance of the duties mentioned in sub-rule
(1)."
17. The duties of Safety Officers under the Rules of 2007 are not substantially different from the
duties as are provided in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1982, extracted supra.
18. Having regard to the qualifications an aspirant for employment on the post of Safety Officer is
required to possess, it is clear that once appointed, the incumbent would be required to advise and
assist the factory management in fulfilment of its obligations, statutory or otherwise, concerning
prevention of personal injuries and maintenance of safe working environment. In terms of Rule 7(4)
of the Rules of 1982, a Safety Officer shall be provided with adequate technical and secretarial staff
and equipment to enable him to function efficiently.
19. From the scheme of the 1948 Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder, namely, the Rules of
1982, there can be no iota of doubt that the Safety Officers are responsible for ensuring precautions
to avoid accidents or any untoward incidents having the potential of causing loss to lives and limbs
of workers employed in the factories. Additionally, the responsibilities of a Safety Officer do not end
with advising the person in-charge of the factory or the occupier to take measures for safeguarding
the lives and limbs of the workers at risk of receiving injuries, but also to carry out safety inspections
to remove unsafe physical conditions as well as to prevent unsafe actions by the workers. Therefore,
apart from advising the factory management to fulfil its obligations, a Safety Officer has a positive
role to ensure safe working J.V.Salunke,PS 4-PIL.115.2022 conditions. In the event the
employer/factory management has not acted on his advice, a Safety Officer has a duty to investigate
dangerous occurrences and report under Rule 115 of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 as well
as to promote setting up of safety committees and act as an advisor to such committees.
20. We are not persuaded to accept Dr. Mane's contention that merely because the relevant statute
uses the word "advise" while describing the duties at some places, the role of a Safety Officer is
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 7
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
merely advisory without anything more and, therefore, he would be immune from prosecution.
21. In our considered opinion, the PIL has been instituted to protect erring Safety Officers upon
whom statutory duties have been entrusted by the Rules of 1982 framed under the 1948 Act to check
and evaluate the effectiveness of action taken or proposed to be taken to prevent personal injuries to
employees working in factories as well as to undertake safety inspections in order to observe the
physical conditions of work and the work practices and procedures followed by workers as well as to
render advice on measures to be adopted for removing the unsafe physical conditions and
preventing unsafe actions by workers.
22. The decision cited by Dr. Mane in Allaiah (supra) has been perused by us. A charge-sheet under
section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter "Cr. P.C.", for short) was filed
saying that the alleged accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the occupier of the
factory, which is punishable under section 92 of the 1948 Act. The petitioners before the Court,
being the Shift Manager and J.V.Salunke,PS 4-PIL.115.2022 the HR Assistant Manager, were not
accused of being responsible for the alleged act resulting in grievous injury suffered by the
respondent no.2. On the basis of such charge- sheet, the Court held that since the alleged accident
had taken place on account of the negligence of the occupier in not providing necessary safeguards
as required under the 1948 Act, vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the petitioners.
Consequently, the Court held that prosecution was maintainable only against the occupier and not
against the petitioners and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners were quashed being
contrary to section 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
23. We have failed to find the materiality of the decision in Allaiah (supra) to the facts of the present
case. The High Court of Karnataka was not concerned with a case of failure to discharge duty by a
Safety Officer appointed under the 1948 Act. Moreover, the decision in Allaiah (supra) turns on the
contents of the charge-sheet that was filed under section 173(2) of the Cr. P.C. Finally, no law has
been laid down therein which would have application in the present case to decide the issue raised
by the petitioner.
24. Insofar as the contention of Dr. Mane that guidelines should be laid down by this Court for
conducting preliminary inquiry before registration of crime is concerned, we need to look at the
decision in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. In such
decision, the Constitution Bench held that registration of a FIR is mandatory under section 154 of
the Cr. P.C., if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no J.V.Salunke,PS
4-PIL.115.2022 preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The Court also went on to
provide illustrations where preliminary inquiry could be conducted depending upon the facts and
circumstances. It was held that preliminary inquiry could be conducted in respect of offences arising
out of matrimonial/family disputes, commercial disputes, medical negligence cases, corruption
cases and cases of abnormal delay and laches in lodging FIR for investigation. Although Dr. Mane is
right that the Court made it clear that the aforesaid illustrations are not exhaustive of all conditions
which may warrant preliminary inquiry, we hasten to add that whether or not a preliminary inquiry
prior to registration of FIR and investigation of the same should be conducted largely depends on
the contents of the written complaint received by the police. If a cognizable offence is disclosed, the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 8
Occupational Health Safety Foundation ... vs The Principal Secretary Ministry Dept ... on 6 December, 2022
police cannot but proceed to register an FIR, the same being its mandatory duty. Even in cases of
alleged criminal negligence, what information the written complaint discloses with regard to the
acts of crime would have primacy. Of course, it is for the police to decide whether in a given case
based on the nature of offence alleged, it ought to conduct a preliminary inquiry or not before
registration of an FIR. The discretion that the police has been conferred by the relevant statute
cannot be directed to be exercised in the manner the writ court directs. Hence, there can be no
guidelines issued by the Court that in all cases of alleged criminal negligence by Safety Officers
leading to loss of lives and limbs, there ought to be a preliminary inquiry.
J.V.Salunke,PS 4-PIL.115.2022
25. Finally, the letter dated 7th August 2010 of the Deputy Director of Factories and Boilers, Jajpur
Road Division, Jajpur Road, District Jajpur, Orissa is taken up for consideration. First of all, the
federal structure of governance of the country has to be respected. The rules framed by the States of
Orissa and Maharashtra under the 1948 Act have not been shown to be similar. Secondly, each State
has its own peculiar problems and solutions. What the State of Orissa in a given fact situation
directs may not be the proper solution when the State of Maharashtra faces such problem. Thirdly,
the letter does not go so far as to support the contention of Dr. mane for a preliminary inquiry to
precede the registration of an FIR. It simply requests the police to get in touch with the Deputy
Director. The letter of the Deputy Director, therefore, cannot be called in aid by the petitioner.
26. In our considered opinion, the PIL has been instituted to protect erring Safety Officers. It is
thoroughly vexatious and misconceived; hence, the same is dismissed.
27. The security deposited by the petitioner, in terms of the order dated 26th September 2022,
stands forfeited. The Registrar General is directed to consult with the Charity Commissioner and
identify any institution/organization working for upliftment of children suffering from Cancer and
to make over such amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to such
institution/organization.
SALUNKE
JV
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
J.V.Salunke,PS
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185582140/ 9
