Health & Safety Offences In Workplace
⚖️ What Are Health & Safety Offences in the Workplace?
Health and safety offences involve violations of statutory or legal duties by employers or other responsible persons that result in unsafe or hazardous working conditions. These may lead to:
Injuries or fatalities,
Occupational diseases,
Unsafe machinery or environments,
Failure to provide protective equipment or training.
📜 Key Legislations Governing Workplace Safety in India:
Factories Act, 1948
Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (consolidates 13 labor laws including the Factories Act)
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 304A (death by negligence), 287 (negligent conduct with machinery), etc.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – when applicable to chemical industries.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Case Laws on Workplace Health and Safety Offences
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 965
🔹 Facts:
An oleum gas leak occurred from a chemical plant owned by Shriram Food and Fertilizers in Delhi, causing injury and one death.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Liability of industries in hazardous sectors for workplace safety lapses and environmental risks.
🔹 Court’s Reasoning:
Introduced the doctrine of absolute liability for hazardous industries.
Held that the enterprise must ensure highest safety standards, regardless of negligence.
Rejected the English law concept of strict liability with exceptions.
🔹 Outcome:
Established that hazardous industries have an absolute duty to prevent harm to workers and public, setting a benchmark for workplace safety liability.
2. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India
Citation: AIR 1989 SC 2138
🔹 Facts:
A worker was severely injured due to the malfunctioning of a factory machine without a protective guard.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Negligence and breach of safety duties under the Factories Act.
🔹 Court’s Reasoning:
Held the employer liable for failure to maintain machinery in a safe condition.
Emphasized duty under Section 21 and 24 of the Factories Act regarding fencing of machinery and precautions.
Court criticized the factory inspector’s laxity.
🔹 Outcome:
Awarded compensation to the worker; reinforced employer’s duty of care and statutory compliance.
3. Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 432
🔹 Facts:
A worker died of electrocution while repairing machinery at his workplace. The question arose whether the death occurred "in the course of employment."
🔹 Legal Issue:
Scope of employer liability and coverage under social insurance for workplace accidents.
🔹 Court’s Reasoning:
Broadly interpreted "in the course of employment".
Held that an employee is entitled to compensation if injury occurs during activities reasonably connected to work.
Highlighted that occupational risks must be mitigated through safe practices and compensation schemes.
🔹 Outcome:
Strengthened the employer’s duty to protect workers and provide compensation under statutory schemes.
4. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories
Citation: AIR 1998 SC 2456
🔹 Facts:
Indian Oil was prosecuted under the Factories Act for not following prescribed safety measures in handling flammable materials.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Applicability of safety standards and criminal liability of managers under the Factories Act.
🔹 Court’s Reasoning:
Held that managerial staff and occupiers can be criminally liable for lapses in workplace safety.
Statutory duties under Sections 7A and 92 of the Factories Act must be enforced strictly.
Highlighted that technical excuses do not absolve responsibility for safety.
🔹 Outcome:
Reinforced criminal liability for safety offences in hazardous industries.
5. Leela Bai v. Union of India (Bhopal Gas Tragedy Compensation Case)
Citation: AIR 1989 MP 103
🔹 Facts:
After the 1984 Bhopal gas leak disaster, thousands were injured or killed due to exposure to methyl isocyanate gas from a Union Carbide plant.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Employer liability for catastrophic industrial accidents affecting employees and surrounding population.
🔹 Court’s Reasoning:
Applied principles of strict and absolute liability.
Held that the employer (Union Carbide) owed compensation and restitution for loss of life and health.
Also criticized failure to implement safety norms despite known risks.
🔹 Outcome:
Led to legal and policy reforms in workplace safety and disaster management.
6. Raj Kumar v. Union of India
Citation: AIR 2000 SC 1145
🔹 Facts:
Worker died due to inhalation of toxic gases while cleaning a chemical tank, without being provided safety gear.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Liability of employer for not providing personal protective equipment (PPE).
🔹 Court’s Reasoning:
Employer failed in statutory and common law duty to provide a safe working environment.
Emphasized that protective gear is not optional but mandatory in hazardous work.
Cited Sections 36 and 37 of the Factories Act on precautions against dangerous fumes.
🔹 Outcome:
Directed compensation and upheld mandatory safety provisions in hazardous processes.
📝 Key Legal Duties and Offences Under Health & Safety Law
| Legal Duty / Offence | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Provide Safe Working Environment | Includes safety training, protective equipment, and machinery safety. |
| Compliance with Safety Standards | Under Factories Act, rules must be followed on ventilation, exits, etc. |
| Report and Investigate Accidents | Required under law; failure is a punishable offence. |
| Negligent Conduct (IPC Sec. 304A, 287) | Criminal liability for death or injury due to negligence. |
| Liability for Hazardous Industries | Subject to absolute liability in case of environmental or worker harm. |
| Duty to Compensate Injured Workers | Under the Employees' Compensation Act and social insurance schemes. |
✅ Conclusion
Indian courts have strongly enforced health and safety laws to protect the life and dignity of workers. Employers are held to strict statutory duties, especially in hazardous industries. Through cases like M.C. Mehta, Francis De Costa, and Raj Kumar, the judiciary has consistently held that any breach of duty to provide a safe workplace can lead to both civil and criminal liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments