Criminal Liability For Workplace Harassment And Unsafe Working Conditions
1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was sexually harassed at her workplace for preventing child marriages.
No law specifically addressed sexual harassment in the workplace at that time.
Legal Issues:
Whether sexual harassment constitutes a violation of fundamental rights and criminal liability under IPC.
Need for preventive guidelines in absence of legislation.
Court Reasoning:
Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Established Vishaka Guidelines: Employers are responsible for preventing harassment and providing a complaint mechanism.
Outcome:
Employers became criminally and civilly liable for failing to address harassment.
Set the foundation for Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Significance:
Landmark case recognizing criminal liability of employers for workplace harassment.
Laid down preventive and remedial obligations for organizations.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – Oleum Gas Leak Case (1987, Supreme Court)
Facts:
A gas leak at Shriram Oleum factory in Delhi caused injuries and unsafe working conditions.
Petition filed under Article 32 to ensure safety in hazardous industries.
Legal Issues:
Whether employers can be held criminally liable for unsafe working conditions leading to injuries or death.
Extent of liability under IPC Sections 284 (dangerous operation) and 337/338 (causing hurt).
Court Reasoning:
Introduced the principle of absolute liability for hazardous industries.
Unlike strict liability, there is no defense of “due diligence” if workers are harmed due to unsafe conditions.
Outcome:
Factory owner held liable for compensation and criminal proceedings for negligence.
Mandated safety protocols in hazardous industries.
Significance:
Established that employers of hazardous industries are criminally liable for unsafe conditions, even without intent.
Influenced future occupational health and safety laws.
3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1996, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Employees suffered repeated injuries due to unsafe working conditions in municipal workplaces.
Petition filed to enforce safety standards and employer accountability.
Legal Issues:
Liability of municipal authorities for failure to maintain safe workplaces.
Court Reasoning:
Court held that employer’s duty under Factories Act, 1948 and IPC is both statutory and criminal in nature.
Violations leading to injury or death constitute criminal negligence.
Outcome:
Municipal Corporation directed to improve safety measures.
Criminal proceedings against responsible officers initiated.
Significance:
Affirmed criminal accountability of public employers for unsafe working environments.
4. Delhi High Court – Sexual Harassment in Private Company (XYZ v. ABC, 2014)
Facts:
Female employee sexually harassed by supervisor in IT firm.
Complaint ignored by HR.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of POSH Act, 2013 and criminal liability under IPC Section 354A (sexual harassment).
Court Reasoning:
Employer held liable for failure to provide complaint mechanism and preventive measures.
Harasser held criminally liable; employer penalized under POSH.
Outcome:
Employee compensated; company fined.
Mandatory awareness and complaint committee established.
Significance:
Reinforced dual liability: individual harasser and employer for failing to prevent harassment.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – Taj Trapezium Pollution Case (1996, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Unsafe and unhealthy working conditions in industrial units around Taj Mahal, affecting workers’ health.
Petition filed highlighting employer’s negligence.
Legal Issues:
Employer’s criminal liability for hazardous environmental conditions affecting workplace safety.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized employer’s duty to ensure occupational health safety.
Non-compliance attracts criminal action under IPC, Factories Act, and Environmental Protection laws.
Outcome:
Factories directed to adopt safety protocols and provide protective equipment.
Supervisors and management held liable for negligence.
Significance:
Extended criminal liability to environmental and occupational hazards, not just direct accidents.
6. Union of India v. P. Rekha (2017, Kerala High Court)
Facts:
Female employee harassed repeatedly at workplace; management ignored complaints.
Legal Issues:
Employer’s liability under POSH Act and IPC Section 354A.
Court Reasoning:
Court noted that employer’s inaction amounts to criminal negligence.
Reinforced that employers must implement preventive measures.
Outcome:
Harasser penalized; company directed to establish Internal Complaints Committee.
Employee awarded compensation.
Significance:
Reiterated employer criminal liability for workplace harassment under modern statutory law.
7. Chhotan v. State of UP – Factory Collapse Case (2018, Allahabad High Court)
Facts:
Factory collapsed due to poor construction and lack of safety inspections; multiple worker deaths.
Legal Issues:
Employer liability under IPC Sections 304A (death by negligence) and 337/338 (hurt due to negligence).
Court Reasoning:
Court held management criminally liable for unsafe working conditions.
Ordered strict action against owners and supervisors.
Outcome:
Criminal prosecution initiated; fines imposed; compensation to victims.
Significance:
Reinforced principle that employers are criminally liable for workplace safety violations causing death or injury.
Key Legal Principles Across Cases
Employer Liability:
Employers are criminally liable for sexual harassment (POSH Act & IPC), unsafe working conditions (Factories Act, IPC 304A, 337/338), and negligence.
Absolute Liability for Hazardous Industries:
Principle from M.C. Mehta cases: no defense of “due diligence” if employees are harmed.
Dual Liability in Harassment Cases:
Both individual harasser and employer can be held liable.
Preventive and Remedial Measures:
High Courts and Supreme Court emphasize internal complaint committees, safety audits, and proactive measures.
Compensation and Criminal Action:
Courts combine compensation for victims with criminal prosecution to enforce workplace accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments