Opinion A duty of care

Thirty years after what is routinely described as the “worst industrial disaster in history”, issues of workplace safety remain inadequately addressed in India. The collapse of buildings in Mumbai and Chennai (September 2013 and June this year, respectively),  pipeline bursts in Andhra Pradesh (June) and accidents at steel plants in West Bengal and Chhattisgarh (September and June) are all part of a dismal pattern. Only one of a hundred registered factories have safety officers, and there were only 743 inspectors in-position in 2011 to ensure that factories conform to workplace safety standards. The state does not have the capacity to implement its own workplace safety regulations — its enforcement agencies are understaffed, underfunded and show a lack of expertise to deal with complex technological processes.

The typical trajectory of post-accident investigation and disbursal of claims is a depressing indictment of the regulatory system. After a disaster big enough to garner public attention, the law, courts and lawyers are rarely involved in establishing accountability or securing compensation. Most often, the government announces ex gratia payments of specific amounts to victims. If responsibility is fixed, it is done through a government investigation or commission of inquiry, which is separated from the disbursement of damages. For instance, the report submitted by the committee to investigate the GAIL India pipeline fire in Andhra Pradesh in June, in which 22 people died, makes no mention of damages and holds no one accountable for negligence or flouting of safety norms.

Advertisement

This cavalier attitude to accountability and damages means there is little incentive for corporations to reduce risk to their workers and others. The Supreme Court earlier this month pointed to a significant absence in the Indian law on damages. Instead of a codified tort law, which countries such as the US, UK and Australia have, Indian courts rely on a variety of laws, such as the Factories Act, 1948, or the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, to adjudicate compensation claims after accidents such as Bhopal in 1984 and the Uphaar fire in 1997 in Delhi. As the court rightly pointed out while directing the Law Commission to examine the need for a comprehensive tort liability law, the state — and other agencies — have a “duty of care”, the breach of which should be “actionable”. India should adopt a legal doctrine that is more favourable to claimants in case of harm.