Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the...

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers

sisnu=~,..........~~~

.~,~

Submitted to the Society for Labor and DevelopmentBy Craig Friedel, Keivan Roebuck, and Tapan Bhardwaj

March 2015


Table of Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1

I. Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2

II. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 3

A. Research ..................................................................................................................... 3

B. Interviews .................................................................................................................. 3

C. Methodological Summary ......................................................................................... 4

III. Legal Framework .................................................................................................... 4

A. National Occupational Health and Safety Laws ................................................... 5

1. Constitutional Guarantees of an Employees' Right to Health and Safety.... 5

2. National Statutes ................................................................................................... 6

i. Health Provisions under the Factories Act, 1948 ............................................. 6

ii. The Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948 ............................................ 7

B. International Health and Safety Laws ................................................................... 8

1. Universal Declaration on Human Rights ............................................................ 9

2. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR) ............................................................................................... 103. International Labour Organization Conventions ............................................. 10

IV. Findings ...................................................................................................................11A. Occupational Hazards and Injuries: Violations of Domestic and InternationalLaw................................................................................................................................ 111. Case Study: R.D.0 Imports ................................................................................. 12

i. Background on SLD's Fight for RDC Workers ............................................... 12ii. Specific RDC Worker's Stories ........................................................................ 13

2. Other Workers' Problems Not Limited to Machine Press Operators .............. 143. Major Violations ................................................................................................... 15

B. Regulation and Reporting of Occupational Hazards and Injuries ..................... 161. Regulatory Mechanism: Inspections, Fines, and Adjudication ........................ 17

i. General Background on the Central Government Regulatory MechanismProvided by the ILO ............................................................................... 17


ii. Haryana Regulatory Mechanism .................................................................... 18

2. Treatment and Reporting Mechanism ............................................................... 20

i. Treatment of Injuries and ESI ......................................................................... 21

ii. Mechanisms for Reporting of Injuries ............................................................ 22

C. Summary of Findings ............................................................................................. 23

V. Moving Toward a Safer and Healthier Workplace ...................................... 24

A. Recommendations for Employers .......................................................................... 24

1. Employers Should Fight to Adopt the Model of the Bangladesh SafetyAccord..................................................................................................... 25

2. Employers should institute new training programs and provide more safetyequipmentto employees ............................................................................ 26

B. Recommendations for Indian Government ........................................................... 27

1. Force Employers to Provide More Training for Employees and Upgrade TheirEquipment................................................................................................................. 27

2. Increase ESIC and Labor Department Collaboration Regarding IndustrialInjuries...................................................................................................................... 28

4. Create Greater Bifurcation of Health and Safety Regulations Based onFactory Size .............................................................................................................. 30

3. Ratify ILO Convention 155 ................................................................................ 32

C. Campaign Advice for SLD ...................................................................................... 33

1. Advocate for Implementation of the Above Government Recommendations. 34

2. Initiate a "Reliable Source" Campaign ............................................................... 35

3. Conduct an Audit of Industrial Injury Statistics Audit as Compared withDoctor Interviews ..................................................................................................... 36

4. Provide Worker Peer to Peer Health, Safety and Technical Training in theSector......................................................................................................................... 37

Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 38


Appendix

Appendix A- Interview Transcripts1. Anonymous, ER Doctor, ESIC hospital in Manesar2. Rohit Berri, Assistant Director of Industrial Health and Safety ("Inspector"),

Ministry of Labor and Employment3. Rajesh and Raj Kumar, Injured Auto Factory Workers, RDC Imports(accompanied by copies of Raj Kumar's ESI registration details and FORM16)

4. Santosh Gupta, Injured Aluminum Factory Worker, Kiran Udhyog5. Vishweshwar Rai, Injured Plastic Factory Worker, Unknown (accompaniedby copies of his private hospital medical records, ESI registration details, andFORM 12)

6. Supriya Sharma, Scroll article, Your car has been built on an assembly line ofbroken fingers

Appendix B- Relevant Labor Department Forms1. FORM 122. FORM 183. Inspection Checklist

Appendix C- SLD litigation against RDC documents1. RTI Application and Response regarding RDC accidents2. RTI Application and Response regarding ESI for RDC workers3. Collective Complaint and Supplement

Appendix D- DGFASLI Statistics

Appendix E- Electronic Files1. Santosh Gupta and Vishweshwar Rai Interview Recording2. Rajesh and Rajkumar Interview Recording3. Photos

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers 1

Introduction

In April of 2013, a factory building in Bangladesh collapsed and killed atleast 1,100 workers.l In the wake of this catastrophe, the United Nations set up a

committee to ensure families of the dead or injured workers were compensated.2The committee estimated that the cost of doing so would be $40 million. As of lastyear, however, it had raised only $15 million3, indicating the shameful reluctance of

factory owners and foreign retailers to help those devastated by their greed.Unfortunately, this was not an isolated instance. It is axiomatic that every yeartens of thousands of lives are shattered throughout the world due to preventableoccupational hazards.

A prime example of this unfortunate truth is the Manesar Auto IndustrialBelt near New Delhi, India. Between the years of 2000 and 2004 alone, the Indianauto component industry grew from USD 3.9 Billion to USD 6.7 Billion.4 There wasalso estimated to be approximately 160 global auto giants with internationalpurchasing offices in India by the year 2010.

Unfortunately, the consequences of this rapid economic success are the ever-increasing prevalence of human rights abuses. The pervasiveness of under- andnon-payment of wages, violations of the Contract Labour Act, failures of employersto pay into the Employees' Provident Fund, lock outs or other abuses of workers fororganizing, etc., has been the focus of significant and ongoing documentation by theSociety for Labor and Development ("SLD").~

As a result of becoming proactively involved in litigation against RDC Steeland Allied Services ("RDC"), SLD teamed with the International and ComparativeRights Law Practicum — a winter intersession program of the UNLV William S.Boyd School of Law and Jawaharlal Nehru University — in an attempt to more fullyunderstand the occupational hazards that threaten the health and safety ofinnocent workers in Manesar.

1 Retailers Face Tough Decisions After Bangladesh Factory Collapse, HUFFINGTON POST (May 12,2013, 10:02 AM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/retailers-Bangladesh-factory_n_3262515.htm1.2 One Year After Rana Plaza, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 27, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/one -ye ar-after-rana-plaza. htm 1?_r=1.3 Id.4 Indian Manufacturing Industry Technology and Prospects, UNIDO.ORG 38, http://www.unido.org/file adm in/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Indian_manufacturing_i ndustry_technolo gy_status_and_prospects.pdf (last visited Mar. 14, 2015).5 Id.~ See e.g. Society for Labour and Development, SLDINDIA.oRG, http://www.sldindia.org/publications.html (last visited Mar. 14, 2015).

Page ~ 1


To that end, this report will:

1, Document occupational hazards in the Manesar auto industry. More

specifically, it will illustrate violations of the Employee State Insurance

("ESI") Act and Factories Act (discussed in more detail below) occurring at

RDC and elsewhere in Manesar.

2. Explore how international human rights laws implicated by occupational

hazards violations in Manesar can be invoked not only at the

international level (such as in complaints to Special Rapporteur) but also

at the individual complaint level (such as in SLD's litigation against

RDC).

3. Offer recommendations to the Indian government and employers and

campaign advice to SLD on how they can each contribute to the

progressive realization of a healthy and safe workplace for all Indian

workers.

4. Provide SLD useful background on India's occupational health and safety

legal framework and enforcement mechanisms. It is hoped this

information will help SLD efficiently use the system to their advantage in

fighting for RDC workers and others.

I. Summary

While India has progressive labor laws, they are clearly not being

implemented effectively. This became apparent through the author's fieldwork inwhich we interviewed a number of people with ties to Manesar, an industrial belt inGurgaon, India. Work related injuries consistently occur in factories but they oftengo unreported. Even if they are reported, however, very little is done to preventsuch injuries from occurring in the future. This is true for a number of reasons, themost salient ones being the Indian government's lack of resources to investigateevery factory. When the inspectors from the Ministry of Labour and Employment doinspect factories, however, they often find many health and safety violations ofdomestic and international law. Nonetheless, the inspectors often allow thefactories to continue operations without improving their facilities safety due to therecognition that most factories simply do not have the capital to correct theviolations. Furthermore, there is a flawed system for reporting injuries to the

Page ~ 2


Indian government, which results in significant under-reporting of injuries. Tocorrect these problems and minimize occupational hazards in India, employers, theIndian Government, and SLD must take action.

II. Methodology

Three participants in the International and Comparative Rights LawPracticum —Craig Friedel (UNLV Boyd Law student), Keivan Roebuck (UNLVBoyd Law student), and Tapan Bhardwaj (JNU graduate student)— authored thisreport in collaboration with SLD Attorney, Gunjan Singh to provide a roadmap forSLD as it begins its work in the area of occupational hazards. This report is theproduct of [1] significant research and [2] various interviews.

A. Research

As set forth in Part III, the authors first carried out significant research togain a firm understanding of the current national and international legalframework designed to secure the health and safety of Indian workers.

The authors also carefully analyzed a news article written by reporterSupriya Sharma entitled Your car has been built on an assembly line of brokenfingers that thoroughly documented her experience with RDC workers. The articlewas found to be remarkably consistent with the author's findings. Accordingly, itscontents have been incorporated into this report as reliable.

Finally, SLD's legal files regarding its ongoing litigation against RDC werealso reviewed to provide background on the current state of the legal battle againstRDC.

B. Interviews

The authors interviewed s~ autoworkers in two groups of three in Manesar.The first group of three workers worked in various plastic and aluminum factoriesand related a plethora of Factories Act violations. The other injured workersinterviewed were currently employed by RDC.B At the time we concluded this

~ See Appendix A.6. Unfortunately, scheduling conflicts did not allow the authors to interview Me.Sharma.g The RDC workers interviewed wanted assistance in confronting their employer to gain saferworking conditions. However, this avenue was not pursued by the authors for two major reasons.First, the team lacked any real power or authority with which to bargain with the employer. Second,there were serious concerns that the employer might later seek repercussions against the

Page ~ 3


report, the additional five injured RDC workers documented by SLD in itscomplaint9 could not be located for interviews. Fortunately, a Manesar union

organizer who knew each of the RDC workers was interviewed, and he was able toprovide additional information on the plight of the RDC workers and other similarlysituated. Finally, SLD Attorney Gunjan Singh was interviewed. He offered

background on SLD's current legal struggle against RDC and important insightsinto how the court system in India functions.

C. Methodological Summary

Overall, the six interviews, the news article analysis, the interview of theManesar union organizer, and the review of SLD's legal files provided a satisfactorymicrocosm of occupational hazards directly faced by individual auto workers inManesar. The significant research on Indian and international law, the interview ofthe Assistant Director ("Inspector") of the Department of Labour, Health and SafetyDepartment, and the interview of the Anonymous ESIC ER Doctor provided abroader understanding of the systemic issues India must address.

In summary, the report's legal background, findings, and recommendationsare based on the following:

■ Significant legal research■ Sup Worker Interviews in Manesar (three from RDC)■ Manesar Union Organizer Interview■ ESIC ER Doctor Interview■ Department of Labour, Health and Safety Dept, Assistant Director

("Inspector") over Manesar Interview■ Review of SLD clinic files (2 RDC import complaints, Right to Information

(RTI) applications, ESI work, list of injured workers, etc.)■ Interview of Gunjan Singh, SLD Attorney■ Analysis of RDC Scroll Report

III. Legal Framework

Occupational health and safety is regulated by a complex framework of local,national, and international law. It is important to understand this frameworkbecause it provides the legal basis for the violations identified in the report's

interviewed workers for attempting to organize. For the same reasons, the authors decided againstattempting to inspect the RDC premises or interview RDC management.9 See Appendix C.3.

Page ~ 4

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers ~

findings. Accordingly, Part A will first describe the role of India's constitutional and

statutory laws. Part B will then outline the applicable international laws.

A. National Occupational Health and Safety Laws

India has some of the most progressive constitutional provisions and labor

laws in the world. Unfortunately, as the findings in Part IV will demonstrate, many

of these good laws are not properly implemented. Moreover, the laws often go

unenforced owing either to a lack of government regulation and oversight or to a

backlogged and corrupt judiciary or both. Nonetheless, it is the current legal

framework under which organizations such as SLD must operate. Thus, whether

SLD is attempting to use the current laws to their advantage or pressing for legal

change, a firm understanding of the occupational health and safety laws is a crucial

first step. To that end, the following provides an overview of relevant Indian

constitutional provisions and laws.

1. Constitutional Guarantees of an Employees' Right to Health and

Safety

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life andpersonal liberty of a person. This article was interpreted by the Indian Supreme

Court in Consumer Education &Research Center Vs. Union Of India.l~ The Courtdeclared that "occupational accidents and diseases remain the most appalling

human tragedy of modern industry and one of its most serious forms of economicwaste." Accordingly, the court held "that right to health, medical aid to protect thehealth and vigor to a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamentalright under Article 21, [and should be] read with ... [the] fundamental human rightsto make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person."Due to India's large population and resulting surplus of labor, businesses and thegovernment tend to undervalue human capital. Every industrial injury is more thana life altering tragedy; it is a huge economic loss.

Furthermore, there are applicable non-judiciable Directive Principles of StatePolicyll that the legislature has the duty to apply when passing laws. For example,Directive Principle 39(e) demands the state to direct its policy towards securing"that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age ofchildren are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to

l0 1995 A.I.R. 922.11 INDIA CONST. art. 5.

Page ~ 5


enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength." This provision specificallydirects the state to promote the health of workers. In theory, this should require thestate when passing laws to ensure the law will promote safe work environments.

This concept is further solidified by Directive Principle 41 which directs thatcitizens not be "forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to theirage or strength." The greater the occupational hazards in the workplace the lesssuited it will be for the vulnerable young and elderly. Unfortunately, economicnecessity all too often requires this vulnerable portion of the population to take jobsthat put their health and safety in grave danger.

Lastly, and most on point, Directive Principle 42 requires the state to securethat "just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief are provided." Asexplained below, none of the demands of the interviewed workers were excessive.Each just wanted human conditions such as adequate gloves, earplugs, machinerysafeguards, and washrooms. Such accommodations are just and humane.

2. National Statutes

There are two principle Indian laws that attempt to secure the health andsafety of Indian Workers: [1] The Factories Act of 1948 and [2] The Employees'State Insurance (ESI) Act of 1948. The Factories Act outlaws certain occupationalhazards in order to prevent industrial injuries whereas the ESI act provides for thecare of workers once an industrial accident has occurred.

i. Health Provisions under the Factories Act, 1948

The Factories Act, 1948 (the "Act") is Indian legislation that governsoccupational safety, health, and welfare of workers.12 Inspectors who work underthe purview of the Labour Commissioner enforce the Act.13 After the recent changein the Act redefining the term "Industry," the Act now applies to factories thatemploy 40 or more workers.14 This, in turn, results in the Act not applying to asignificant number of factories. Nonetheless, several provisions of the Act areimplicated in the day-to-day activities that take place in many Manesar factories.

12 7'he Factories Act — 1948, DELHI.GOV.IN, http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_labour/Labour/Home/Acts+Implemented/Summary+of+the+Acts+Implemented/The+Factories+Act-1948(last updated Mar. 23, 2014).13 Id.14 Labour's Laws &Rules, HIND MAZDOOR SABHA (Jul. 18, 2014), http://www.hindmazdoorsabha.com/link-details.php?LinkID=18.

Page 16


When it comes to safe working conditions, there are four provisions that areimplicated. Specifically, Section 14 of the Act states that factories with

manufacturing processes should take care of proper exhaustion of fume and other

impurities. Section 36 states that no worker shall be forced to enter a confined spacein any factory in which gas, fume, vapor, or dust is likely to be present and presenta risk to his or her health. With respect to eye safety, Section 35 provides thatemployers must provide employees with goggles or screens to prevent eye injuries.Moreover, factories shall take proper precautionary measures in providing for firesafety, pursuant to Section 38. Such measures include having a safe mean to escapefire and the necessary equipment to extinguish fire.

Whenever an injury occurs in the workplace, the Act mandates certainparties to carry out different procedures. Namely, Section 88(1) states that when aninjury results in death or inability to work for a period of 48 hours or more, theemployer must report the injury to authorities. In the case of an injury resulting indeath, once authorities receive the notice, an inspector must investigate the injurywithin one month of receiving the notice.15 Furthermore, pursuant to Section 88(3),the State Government has the authority to make rules for regulating the above-mentioned procedures.

Any factory owner or manager that is in contravention of the Act's provisionsis guilty of an offence and may be imprisoned for up to two years, fined one lakhrupees, or both.16 If the contravention continues after the conviction, the factoryowner or manager may be fined one thousand rupees for each day that thecontravention continues.17 When a violation of the Act results in an accidentcausing death, the fine must be 25,000 rupees or greater.18 Further, when aviolation of the act results in an accident causing serious bodily injury, the fine isnot less than 5,000 rupees.l~ The term serious bodily injury means any injury thatresults in the loss of, or permanent injury to, any limb, sight or hearing.2o

ii. The Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948

The Employees' State Insurance Act ("ESI Act") is a social insurance schemethat protects workers in a number of different situations.21 It applies to all factories,

15 THE FAC'rORIEs ACT, 1948 § 88(2) (1987).is Id. at § 92.1~ Id.~s Id.19 Id.20 Id.21 Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, http://www.es

Page ~ 7


including those owned by the government.z2 To administer the scheme, the ESI Actcreates a corporation known as the Employees' State Insurance Corporation.z3

Other than administering the benefits specified in the ESI Act, it's interesting tonote that the Corporation has the power to promote measures to improve healthand welfare of insured persons.24 It can also promote measures for therehabilitation and re-employment of injured workers.25 The program is funded by acontribution from the employer and a contribution from the employee.26 The CentralGovernment is responsible for determining the size of the contributions.27

The ESI Act provides for periodical payments to workers and theirdependents in a number of situations. First, it provides periodical payments to sickworkers as long as a doctor certifies their sickness.28 Second, payments are given toworkers who cannot work due to pregnancy.2~ Third, whenever a worker becomesdisabled due to a work related injury and receives certification from a doctor, thatworker is entitled to periodical payments.30 Fourth, when a worker dies as a resultof a work related injury, then that worker's dependents receive periodicalpayments.31 Additionally, the ESI Act pays for medical treatment of insured personsand contributes towards the funeral of any worker who died from a work relatedinjury.32

B. International Health and Safety Laws

In the occupational hazard context, this report focuses on three relevantinternational human rights frameworks (1) the Universal Declaration on HumanRights, (2) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,and (3) International Labor Organization Conventions. Each will be discussed indetail in the following subsections.

ic.nic.in/esi_act.php (last visited Mar. 14, 2015).22 THE EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 Ch. I, § 1(4) (1948).23 Id. at Ch. II, § 3(1).24 Id. at Ch. II, § 19.25 Id.2G Id. at Ch. IV, § 39(1).27 Id. at Ch. IV, § 39(2).28 Id. at Ch. V, § 46(1)(a).z9 Id. at Ch. V, § 46(1)(b).3o Id. at Ch. V, § 46(1)(c).31 Id. at Ch. V, § 46(1)(d).32 Id. at Ch. V, §§ 46(1)(e), (~.

. _,


1. Universal Declaration on Human Rights

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights33 was promulgated in 1948 inthe wake of WWII by the United Nations and represents the first global expressionof rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It is now considered bymost international law experts to be a standard of international law and wasfoundational to the drafting of the ICCPR and ICESCR.

Article 3 of the Declaration asserts that "everyone has the right to life,liberty, and security of person." This right is reflected in Art. 21 of the IndianConstitution. Yet, preventable industrial accidents are often fatal depriving hardworking men, woman, and even children of their very lives. Bonded labor anddangerously excessive hours strips them of their liberty. And occupational hazardsconstantly threaten their security of person.

Much like Directive Principle 42, Article 23(1&3) further declares thateveryone has a right to "just and favorable conditions of work... [and]remuneration... supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection." Asexplained above, just and favorable conditions are set forth by the Factories Act andE5I is India's primary means of social protection. The problem is that neitherscheme is faithfully executed.

Finally, Article 24 directs that "everyone has the right to rest and leisure,including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."As discussed in more detail below, many workers are content with working longerhours with just regular pay. They would not dare demand to be paid for holidays.All they repeatedly yearned for is an occasional tea break. Is that too much to ask?For many employers the answer appears to be a resounding yes.

Unfortunately, like most international law, the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights is too often a roaring tiger with paper teeth. In some instances,however, if the roar —international attention and pressure — is loud enough, thatmay be all that is needed to force compliance. In either case, it serves as animportant ideal that all nations should progressively strive to realize.

33 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/R,ES/217(III) (Dec. 10,1948).

Page 19

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers '~~ 1

2. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights(ICESCR)

The ICESCR came into being after World War II as an effort to promotesocial progress and better standards of life.34 It is an international treaty, and assuch, it creates obligations that are legally enforceable internationally amongst thecountries that adopted it. Since April of 1970, India has been bound by theobligations set forth in the ICESCR by way of its ratification of the treaty.35

Accordingly, Article 6 of the ICESCR requires State parties to recognize theright to work. Included in this right is the opportunity to earn a living by any workthat one wishes. The State must take the appropriate steps to safeguard this right.Such steps include providing technical and vocational guidance and trainingprograms. Article 7 requires States to recognize the right to just and favorableworking conditions. It specifically lists safe and healthy working conditions andrest, leisure, and reasonable limitation of working hours.

3. International Labour Organization Conventions

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is an organization that tiestogether cooperation between international governments, employers, and workers'organizations to promote social and economic progress.3~ It has 185 member statesthat get together to debate labor policies and adopt standards.37 While India is oneof the member states, it has only adopted a select few of the standards that the ILOpromulgated.38 This is especially true when it comes to ILO standards regardingoccupational health and safety.

Two ILO conventions that India has ratified are implicated by theoccupational hazards in Indian factories. First, Convention 081, which deals withLabour Inspection, states that the labor inspector shall enforce legal provisionsrelating to safety and health.39 Second, Convention 160, which deals with LabourStatistics, states that compilation and publication of statistics on occupational

34 UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3.35 Core International Human Rights Treaties, Optional Protocols &Core ILO Conventions Ratifiedby India, NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA http://nhrc.nic.in/documents/india_ratification_status.pdf (last visited Mar. 14, 2015).3s How the ILO Works, INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION, http://www.ilo.org/globallabout-the-ilo/how-the-ilo-works/lang--en/index.htm (last visited Mar. 14, 2015).3~ Id.ss Id.3s Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) art. 3(1)(a).

Page ~ 10


injuries shall use the latest standards and guidelines established by the IL0.40While India tries to comply with these conventions, they fall short of doing so, whichwill be demonstrated in the Part IV.B.2 below.

It is also worth noting that Convention 155, which deals with occupationalsafety and health, has not yet been ratified by India. The convention requiresemployers to ensure that the machinery and equipment are safe and without risk tohealth,41 to ensure chemical substances are without risk to health,42 and to provideadequate protective clothing and equipment to prevent accidents or adverse effectson health.43

Many of Convention 155's provisions are already in force at the national levelthrough the Factories Act, 1948. The convention has not been ratified, however,because it applies to all industries and all workers whereas the Factories Act isapplicable only to a small fraction of workers.

IV. Findings

The authors' fieldwork in India revealed two main obstacles in India thatmust be overcome to ensure worker health and safety. First, there are severaloccupational hazards occurring in workplaces because the factories are notcomplying with domestic and international laws. Second, the mechanism to reportinjuries is flawed and can be improved. Accordingly, Part A will document theoccupational hazards observed by the authors and describe how each violatesdomestic and international law. Subsequently, Part B will elucidate the lack ofregulatory inspections in India and the flaws of the work injury reporting system.

A. Occupational Hazards and Injuries: Violations of Domesticand International Law

The following subsections will discuss SLD's efforts to make an autocomponent manufacturing company in India a safer working environment. It willthen discuss the stories of two workers from the same company, as well as theexperiences of workers from different auto companies in the same region of India.Thereafter, this report will depict how the workers' stories demonstrate violations ofdomestic and international law.

4o Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (No. 160) art. 1, 2.41 Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) art. 16(1).42 Id. at art. 16(2).43 Id. at art. 16(3.

Page ~ 11


1. Case Study: R.D.0 Imports

i. Background on SLD's Fight for RDC Workers

SLD was made aware of significant violations of the Factories Act of 1948resulting in amputation of fingers of at least eight RDC Steel and Allied Services("RDC") workers. They filed one complaint on behalf of Mr. Rajesh which alsooutlined various violations occurring at the RDC factory.44 A supplementalcomplaint making the Labour Department aware of an additional eight incidentswhere RDC workers had fingers amputated by press machines was also filed45.

Fig. 1- RDC workers use power presses such as theseresulting in serious crush injuries to fingers

By filing an RTIApplication46, 5LD also pushedthe ESIC Inspector, Mr. A. K.Garg, to investigate whether theemployees were registered underESI as per the EmployeesInsurance Act. Since the ESICinspector notified RDC it wouldbe coming to ensure ESI Actcompliance, RDC (and its laborsuppliers) enrolled the workersin ESI before the inspectorarrived.47

SLD also filed an RTI application to see whether, as per law, RDC hadreported the occupational injuries documented by SLD.48 Unsurprisingly, theresponse to the application revealed that RDC had not reported any of theaccidents.49

44 See Appendix C.3.46 Id.46 See Appendix C.2.47 Ultimately, SLD was able to accomplish its goal of helping RDC workers get ESI. However, thefact that SLD had to force RDC's hand by involving Mr. Garg, an ESIC Inspector, is a prime exampleof the structural challenges facing workers.98 See Appendix C.1.4s Id.

Page 112

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers ~~

ii. Specific RDC Worker's Stories

Two RDC workers, Rajesh and Rajkumar, described their working conditionsat RDC imports.50 They both worked on machines that press metal sheets into acomponent for a car.51 Once the metal sheets have been pressed, the workers thenhave to stick their hands in to pull the component out.52 The machines have nosensors that detect whether a human's hands are in the pressing area.53 Further,there is a button that must be manually pressed in order to trigger the machine.54

Both Rajesh and Rajkumar stuck their hands in at the wrong time and had theirhands smashed by the machine, resulting in their fingers being amputated.55

After the injuries, they were both sent to a private hospital to get treated.5GThen, after the treatment, they were sent to an ESI hospital for incidentals.57 Theworkers suspect that this was done to circumvent the legal reporting requirementsto police.58 Although Rajesh and Rajkumar were happy that they receivedtreatment, they are saddened by the fact that they have lost their fingers forever.5~Additionally, Rajesh stated that he was demoted due to his injury, and that RDCrefuses to give him back his old job.~~

Rajesh and Rajkumar stated that they work about ten hours a day.~l Theyalso said that workers often complain to management about occupational hazards,but the owner of the factory will not listen.62 During one occasion, an employeebegan filming an occupational hazard on his phone to establish credibility andsomeone alerted the owner.63 The owner then went up to the employee, slappedhim, kicked him out, and fired him.64

5o Rajesh and Rajkumar, Occupational Hazards Interviews (Craig Friedel & Keivan Roebuck eds.,Tapan Bhardwaj trans., 2015); See also Appendix A.3 (providing summary of interview); AppendixE.2 (providing the recording of the interview).51 Id. at 2.52 Id.

53 Id.54 Id.55 Id.5G Id.5~ Id.58 Id.5s Id.so Id.sl Id. at 1.~2 Id.ss Id.sa Id.

Page ~ 13


Fig. 2- Rajesh Fig. 3- Rajkumar

2. Other Workers' Problems Not Limited to Machine Press Operators

We also had the opportunity to interview a Plastic Factory Worker namedVishweshwar Rai.65 He told us that he works 12 hours a day and only takes one ortwo days off per month.~~ He also said that he sometimes works double and tripleshifts, or 24 hours or 36 hours straight.~~ He told us that once workers get injuredand receive medical treatment from ESI, there is a 50% chance of them gettingrehired.~8 Moreover, he said that he treats about two injuries per week and theworkers face verbal abuse whenever they fail to meet their targets.6~ The workersare also exposed to fumes in the factory and are provided with no masks orprotection.70

Finally, we interviewed an Aluminum Factory Worker who described hisworking conditions for us.~l He stated that at his work, about 600-700 people usefour toilets.72 He also stated that hot aluminum once splashed him in the eye andcaused injury to his eye and surrounding eyelid.73 Aluminum injuries were not very

~5 Vishweshwar Rai, Occupational Hazards Interviews (Craig Friedel & Keivan Roebuck eds., TapanBhardwaj trans., 2015); See also Appendix A.5 (providing summary of interview); Appendix E.1(providing the recording of the interview).ss Id. at 1.~~ Id.sa Id.G9 Id.70 Santosh Gupta, Occupational Hazards Interviews (Craig Friedel & Keivan Roebuck eds., TapanBhardwaj trans., 2015). See also Appendix A.4 (providing summary of interview); Appendix E.1(providing the recording of the interview).71 Id. at 1.~z Id.~3 Id.

Page ~ 14


common, however, as he only saw two injuries in the past five or six years.74Nonetheless, they can be rather severe, as one of the injuries involved a co-workeraccidentally dumping hot aluminum over his head and putting him in a state wherehe was unable to work for the rest of his life.75

r.

Fig. 4- Vishweshwar Rai

3. Major Violations

Fig. 5- Close-up of Vishweshwar Rai's Hand

After our interviews with workers, the Inspector, and the ESIC doctor, wefound several occupational hazards in the factories of Manesar that violate domesticand international law. The following table details the violations:

Law/Obli ation How is it violated? It's a violation because...Article 7 of the . Press machines that employees operate do employers are not creatingICCESCR not have sensors. a safe and healthy work

• Workers do not receive adequate safety environment for theirgear to assist them in their duties. workers.

• Workers receive no noise protection.• The gloves that employees receive

deteriorate after about three hours. Theymay be provided with a replacement pair,but the are limited to two airs er shift.

Section 14 and 36 of Workers are exposed to fumes while they employers force workers tothe Factories Act, work. be in confined spaces where1948 fumes are present and do

not properly dispose of thefumes.

~4 Id.~5 Id.

Page 115


Section 38 of the There are no fire escape routes marked on there are inadequateFactories Act, 1948 the walls. means for dealing with

Little to no equipment to extinguish a fire. fires.No fires rinkler s stems.

Section 35 of the Employees do not receive any eye Section 35 mandates thatFactories Act, 1948 protection when dealing with dangerous employers provide eye

materials. protection.Article 7 of the Workers are exposed to electrical hazards it indicates that theICESCR such as water near open connections and factories are not safe and

provided no rubber mats. healthy workInadequate lunch and tea breaks. environments.Inadequate washroom facilities.Little training of operating procedures.No first aid boxed.No onsite doctors.

Section 88(1) of the Employers circumvent reporting injuries to Section 88(1) requiresFactories Act, 1948 the Ministry of Labour and Employment employers to report injuries

by sending injured workers to private to appropriate authorities.hos itals instead of ESI hos itals.

ILO Convention 081 Ministry of Labour and Employment ILO Convention 081 statesinspectors often finds health and safety that the labor inspectorviolations of Indian law, but allows the shall enforce legalfactories to continue operations without provisions relating to safetycorrecting the violations. This is because and health.the inspectors understand that thefactories do not have the necessary capitalto correct the violations.

B. Regulation and Reporting of Occupational Hazards andInjuries

As the immediately preceding Part IV.A demonstrates, violations of theFactory Act's health and safety provisions are commonplace. This is for two mainreasons. First, India lacks an effective preventative regulatory mechanismincluding routine inspections and fines to prevent accidents. Second, there is a lackof reporting and accountability once an industrial injury has occurred.

Page 116


1. Regulatory Mechanism: Inspections, Fines, and Adjudication

i. General Background on the Central Government Regulatory

Mechanism Provided by the ILO

The following information from the ILO provides a useful starting point tounderstanding the occupational health and safety regulatory mechanism in India atthe central government level:~s

Labour Inspection Structure and organization: The central governmentand the Ministry of Labour oversee the formulation of national policy andlegislation, while the Labour Departments of India's 28 States and seven

Union Territories are responsible for implementing and enforcing the

Factories Act through their factory inspectorates.

Meanwhile, the Directorate General, Factory Advice Services and

Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) — an agency of the central government —advises on the formulation of national health and safety policies for factoriesand docks and liaises with the state factory inspectorates on implementationof the Factories Act.

The Ministry of Labour and Employment is responsible forformulating and administrating laws and regulations relating to labour andemployment...

Departments) responsible for Labour Inspection: At a central level orsphere, the Directorate General, Factory Advice Service and LabourInstitutes (DGFASLI) carries out inspections related to occupational safetyand health issues. Also at a central level the Chief Labour Commissioner(CLC) also known as the Central Industrial Relation Machinery (CIRM) isresponsible for enforcing labor legislation related to working conditions. Boththe DGFASLI and the CLC are attached offices of the Ministry of Labour &Employment. At a state level, the Inspectorates of Factories under the controlof each State Labour Departments enforce the Factories Act in theirrespective states.77 Different inspectors carry out safety and healthinspections and those related to labor issues.

Visits and functions: Most inspections are conducted after receiving acomplaint or in cases where it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety ofworkers. Since 2008 and to reduce the number of routine inspection,

76 India, INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (May 29, 2011), http://www.ilo.org/labadmin/info/WCMS_156047/lang--en/index.htm.77 See infra Part IV.B.l.ii.

Page 117


undertakings employing less than 40 workers are required to submit a self-certificate certified by a chartered accountant.

Sanction and administrative processes: Inspectors' sanctioning powersare limited to filing prosecution complaints in the courts of law. Sanctions forviolations of labor laws provide for fines and/or imprisonment. Under theBuilding and other construction Workers (RECS) Central Rules, 1998 aninspector is empowered to issue warnings to employers regarding the safety,health or welfare of building workers. No other labor law provides forissuance of warning by the inspector. Although the law does not specificallygrant discretion to the inspectors to give warnings and advice instead oflaunching prosecution... there is a practice followed to issue warnings tothose offenders who are first-timers and who rectify the irregularities withina given timeframe.

Inspectors can also issue a prohibition order when in constructionsites, buildings, factories or mines work is performed in such conditions thatare a danger to life safety of the health of the building workers or to thepublic, until measures have been taken to remove the cause of the danger tothe inspector's satisfaction.

The Director General of Inspection in the Central Sphere is authorizedto exercise the powers of an inspector as well as a quasi -Judicial authority,and is empowered to impose fines on the offending employers.

At first glance the above central government mechanism appears to becomprehensive. However, as Part IV.A explains above, the current mechanism isnot providing sufficient oversight in the area of occupational safety. Some of thesystemic problems with the current system are addressed in Part V.

ii. Haryana Regulatory Mechanism

The Haryana Labor Department consists of two separate wings —the LaborWing (DGFASLI state counterpart) and the Factory Wing (CLC state counterpart).The Labor Wing "endeavors to ensure expeditious settlement of the disputes by wayof encouraging bi-partite negotiations (Management &Workers) and entering intotri-partite negotiations (Management, Workers &Labour Department)."78 Disputeswhich do not get settled are referred to one of nine Labour Courts/Tribunals foradjudication including three in Faridabad., two in Gurgaon, and one each in

78 Activities of the Department, LABOR DEPARTMENT HARYANA, http://hrylabour.gov.in/page.php?module=pages&pid=4, (last visited Mar. 14, 2015).

Page 118


Panipat, Rohtak, Ambala and Hissar respectively.79 Their principal function is to

adjudicate upon industrial disputes referred to them by the Government besides

claims of dues against employers submitted by the workers.80 These Courts are

headed by Presiding Officers of the level of Additional District and Sessions

Judge.81

The only readily available information regarding the function of the Factory

Wing is that it "conducts inspections from time to time under various labor laws"

and is responsible for licensing and approval of factory building plans.82

Fortunately, Rohit Beri, the Assistant Director of Industrial Health and Safety,

Labor Department Haryana ("Inspector") with jurisdiction over Manesar (including

RDC), provided additional insights into Haryana's Factory Wing. The Inspector

explained the Factory Wing is the technical side of the Labor Department consisting

of engineers who inspect factories for health and safety violation of the Factories

Act. The inspectors file complaints based on their inspections and these are

processed by the Labor Wing which, as explained above, focuses on conflict

resolution and adjudication.

The hierarchy of inspectors of the Factory Wing is as follows:

■ Joint Directors: Inspects factories with >1000 workers■ Deputy Directors: Inspects factories with between 500-1000 workers■ Assistant Directors: Inspects factories with <500 workers

Each type of director is given a specific jurisdiction with the size of the

jurisdiction increasing from Assistant Director to Joint Director to account for thelarger number of smaller factories.

The Inspector is responsible for [1] inspecting all registered factories [2] and

investigating all non-fatal injuries (if the injury is fatal then the Deputy Directorwill investigate).

When inspecting factories, the inspectors use a comprehensive checklist oflaws with which the factory must comply.83 However, Rohit Beri admitted thatsmall factories are not usually able to comply with all of the requirements.Recognizing that were he to strictly enforce the current laws many of the smallfactories would go out of business and all the workers would lose their jobs, theInspector focuses on five common violations as per Labor Department policy:

~s Id.so Id.si Id.82 Id.

83 See Appendix B.3.

Page 119


1. Fire Hazards (e.g. no sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, etc.).2. Electrical Hazards (e.g. Water near electricity, lack of rubber mats,

open wires, etc.).3. Lack of Lifting Machine Experts. Normal workers are not properly

trained to operate heavy lifting machinery, such as forklifts, leading toaccidents. Such operators should be trained experts.

4. Heavy Machinery Hazards (e.g. old or budget machinery that lackproper safety equipment such as motion sensors). Notably, power presseslead to a significant number of injuries —especially to fingers (e.g. RDC).

5. Lack of Factory License (i.e. illegal factories that are not properlyregistered with the state). Importantly, notice before inspection, as perprotocol, is not required for unlicensed factories.

Second, when an inspector becomes aware of an occupational injury, theymust go investigate the accident at the factory, take pictures, review medicalrecords, write a report, and potentially submit a complaint within 15 days.Inspectors become aware of injuries in one of two ways: [1] Self-reporting of theinjury by the employer on FORM 18 and [2] "reliable sources". FORM 18 requiresinformation regarding when, where, why, and how the injury occurred.84Anecdotally, the Inspector noted that he investigates only 20-25 FORM 18industrial injuries per year! This is likely due to the factory owner disincentives toself-report.85 What constitutes a "reliable source" is undefined, but the Inspectorsaid that often times it will be the media, NGOs, or even the workers themselvesthat call his office to report they were injured (rare).

2. Treatment and Reporting Mechanism

When the regulatory mechanism described above fails to prevent anoccupational injury, two things should occur: [1] the worker should be providedtreatment and [2] the injury should be reported to the government so it can takeappropriate steps to prevent future injuries at the same factory and compileaccurate national occupational injury statistics.

84 See Appendix B.2.85 See infra Part V.B.3.

Page ~ 20


i. Treatment of Injuries and ESI

When an individual is injured at the workplace, they can either go to an

ESIC hospital if they were enrolled in the Employee State Insurance (ESI) program

or to a private hospital if they were not.

To participate in ESI, the employers must have enrolled their employees and

contributed 4.75% of the employee's wages to the program with the employee

contributing another 1.75%. Once enrolled, ESI provides insured workers and their

family members medical treatment. There is no ceiling on expenditure for the

treatment on payment of a token annual premium of Rs.120. Other benefits of being

enrolled in ESI include:

(a) Sickness Benefit (SB): 70% of wages payable to insured workers

during the periods of certified sickness for a maximum of 91 days in a year.

To qualify, the insured worker is required to contribute for 78 days in a

contribution period of 6 months. Extended and enhanced benefits are also

available in certain situations.

(b) Maternity Benefit: Full wage payable for three months and

extendable by an additional month on medical advice subject to contributionfor 70 days in the preceding year.

(c) Temporary or Permanent Disablement Benefit: 90% of wagespayable for as long as disability continues or indefinitely depending upon theextent of loss of earning capacity do to the disability as certified by a Medical

Board.

(d)Dependents' Benefit: 90% of wage payable to the dependents of adeceased insured worker in cases where death occurs due to employmentinjury or occupational hazards.

(e) Funeral Expenses: Rs.10,000 is payable to the dependents or to theperson who performs last rites immediately upon entering insurableemployment.8~

According to an anonymous ER doctor working at the ESIC hospital inManesar, 90% of workers in the Auto Industry have ESI and that number isgrowing.S7 Although this statistic and sentiment may be highly exaggerated, everyautoworker interviewed was enrolled in ESI.

Nonetheless, several interviewed workers asserted that, even though theywere enrolled in ESI, they were first taken to a private hospital for medical

8G Benefits, EMPLOYES' STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, http://www.esic.nic.in/bene~its.php (lastvisited Mar. 15, 2015).$' See Appendix A.1.

Page (21


treatment and then directed to seek the other ESI benefits later. This commonpractice is likely due to the requirement that when the hospital finds out theindividual was injured at the workplace they must fill out FORM 16, whichidentifies the factory where the injury occurred. The doctor was unable to explainwhat follow up, if any, was undertaken once the form was filled out proclaimingthat it was then "out of his hands." The doctor could only say that the police wouldbe called if the hospital suspected or had knowledge that the injured individual wasinvolved in or a victim of a crime (e.g. assault of employee by their employer or theiragents). The government recommendations discussed in Part V attempt to offersolutions to this dilemma.

Those without ESI are not allowed to be treated at ESIC hospitals unless it isan emergency. This condemns workers making Rs. 100 per day to either seektreatment at a private hospital incurring lakhs in medical bills or to self-treat theinjury. For this reason, the ESI doctor proclaimed that "ESI is God to them [theworkers enrolled]" because there is no way that they could otherwise afford the highcost of medical care. This troubling issue can only be resolved through theexpansion of the ESI program to cover workers in smaller factories and allindustries.

ii. Mechanisms for Reporting of Injuries

Once an occupation injury has occurred, the injury should be reported to thegovernment so it can take appropriate steps to prevent future injuries at the samefactory and compile accurate national occupational injury statistics. The onlycurrent mechanism to report injuries to the government is FORM 16 (filled out atESIC hospitals) and FORM 18 (to be submitted to the Labor Department by theemployer). Injuries reported on FORM 18 are investigated by the LaborDepartment inspectors as discussed in more detail below. However, according tothe interviewed inspector, no investigation is made by Labor Department inspectorsinto those injuries reported on FORM 16. In other words, there appears to be acomplete lack of communication between ESIC and the Labor Department.

This lack of communication has also likely led to extensive underreporting ofoccupational injuries. Hospitals are at the front lines and see many occupationalinjuries every day. Each of these should be reported using FORM 18 by theemployer, but the Inspector asserts he only receives 20-25 per year! This appearsconsistent with the extremely low official government occupational injury statistics.

Page (22


According to the most recent accessible statistics from DGFASLI, there was a totalof only 29,837 injuries (1433 fatal) in all of India in 2011.88

In contrast, the United States, with a population of only 300 million and saferworkplaces, had over 3 million occupational injuries reported by private employersalone. This resulted in an incidence rate of 3.3 cases per 100 full-time workers,according to estimates from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII)conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.89 This means that India, with apopulation of 1.2 billion (four times the US) and less occupational health and safetyenforcement, could actually have over 12 million occupational injuries per year- notthe 29,837 claimed in official government statistics.

The fact that occupational injuries are extremely underreported in officialgovernment statistics is confirmed by the anonymous ESIC ER doctor interviewed.One doctor in one hospital asserted he treated between 250 and 500 industrialinjuries in one year! If true, according to government injury statistics this wouldmean that there are between 60-120 doctors in all of India (29,837 injuries dividedby 500 and 250 injuries per doctor respectively). Even accounting for the fact thatan ESIC ER doctor in the Manesar auto industrial belt would treat adisproportionate amount of occupational injuries, it is clear that the officialgovernment statistics are absurdly low.

More discussion on the subject of barriers to reporting can be found inPartV.B.2 along with a recommendation that may circumvent some of theseobstacles.

C. Summary of Findings

The following are the cumulative findings of Health and Safety violations:

■ Press machines and other heavy equipment lack safety sensors orother safeguards

■ Workers receive insufficient safety gear (e.g. no ear protection, gloveswear out after three hours of a twelve hour shift, etc.)

■ Excessive exposure to fumes■ No fire escape routes or sprinkler systems■ Electrical hazards such as water near open connections and no rubber

mats

88 See Appendix E, Table 8.1. Also available at http://www.dgfasli.nic.in/infol.htm.89 News Release, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Dec. 4, 2014), http://www.bls. gov/news.release/archives/osh_12042014.pdf.

Page 123


■ Lack of sufficient lunch and tea breaks

■ Malpayment of wages leading workers to have to work an unhealthyamount of overtime

■ Lack of adequate washroom facilities■ Factory plans not registered

■ Lack adequate training or posting of operating procedures■ No First Aid box or on site doctor available

The following systemic problems have also been deduced:

■ Although most workers were enrolled in ESI, employers first takeemployees to private hospitals and then direct them to ESIC Hospitalsto obtain long term benefits in a ploy to avoid industrial injurydetection by the state.

■ There is little or no communication between ESIC and the LaborDepartment's Health and Safety Inspectors such that injuries go underreported.

■ Small factories cannot afford to comply with the current health andsafety regulations.

V. Moving Toward a Safer and Healthier Workplace

As Demonstrated in Part IV, India has significant room for improvementwith regard to occupational hazards. Changes must be made. This report willpropose changes that Employers can make in Part A below. Further, it will suggestchanges that the Indian Government should make in Part B, and suggestions forfuture advocacy by SLD and partner organizations in Part C.

A. Recommendations for Employers

To make significant changes in the workplace, employers need a largeamount of capital. Unfortunately, as the Ministry of Labour and Employmentrecognizes, most of the factory owners in India do not have the capital to make theirfacilities safer. As such, an approach must be adopted that would allow the Indianfactories to acquire necessary capital. Then, once the factories have the capital, theycan purchase safer machines, provide more safety equipment, and implement bettertraining programs.

Page ~ 24


1. Employers Should Fight to Adopt the Model of the BangladeshSafety Accord.

The companies in India should adopt an approach to upgrading factoryequipment similar to that of the companies in Bangladesh. Namely, after thehorrific collapse of a factory in Bangladesh in 2013, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Gap Inc.and VF Corp. found a new way to secure low-cost loans to upgrade factories.90 Theydid so by forming an Alliance and forming an agreement with the InternationalFinance Corporation to provide loans backed by a corporate guarantee.~l Factorieshave thus been able to take on loans at interest rates that are less than one-third ofthe market rate.92 The loans, in turn, are being used to purchase safety equipmentsuch as fire doors, safety lights, and automatic-sprinkler systems.~3 If Indianfactories were also able to take out low interest loans to upgrade equipment, thenthere likely would be significantly less injuries in the workplace.

However, Indian factories should go one step further and makemultinationals commit to a system similar to that of the Bangladesh Safety Accord.The Bangladesh Safety Accord is comprised of legally binding agreements betweenmultinationals and trade unions by which all parties strive to make workplacessafer.~4 Employers should also seek legally binding agreements not only betweenthe multinationals and trade unions, but also between the multinationals andthemselves. This would ensure accountability and reliable support, unlike the Wal-Mart/Gap scheme in Bangladesh.95

Furthermore, Indian employers should accept and implement the policies andprocedures of the Bangladesh Safety Accord. Namely, employers should allow forindependent inspections supported by a program developed by multinationals.9~Moreover, they should agree to public disclosure of all of the inspection results aswell as their plans to correct violations.~~ Employers should also create

so Alliance Sets Plan to Finance Bangladesh Factory Upgrades, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Dec. 5,2014 10:00 AM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/alliance-sets-plan-to-finance-Bangladesh-factory-upgrades -1417791607.sl Id.s2 Id.ss Id.~4 About the Accord, ACCORD ON FIRE AND BUILDING SAFETY IN BANGLADESH, http://bangladeshaccord.org/about/ (last visited Mar. 14, 2015).95 Comparison: The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh and the Gap/WalmartScherrce, CLEANCLOTHEs.oRG, http://www.cleanclothes.org/resources background/comparison-safety-accord-and-the-gap-walmart-scheme (last visited Mar. 14, 2015) (One significant problem with theWal-Mart/Gap scheme is that there is no mechanism to ensure that the multinationals will continuetheir support both financially and otherwise.).ss About the Accord, supra note 94.

Page 125


democratically elected committees within their factories to report on safety issuesand compliance.9~

Similarly, there appears to be incentive for multinationals to push factoryowners to pursue these low interest loans. Such incentive comes in the form ofavoiding backlash from various human rights organizations. For example,

organizations such as the United Students Against Sweatshops stagedemonstrations against multinationals to improve compliance with safety standardsin their factories.99 The pressure of such organizations sometimes will leadcompanies to either improve conditions or move to another country.loo If companiesmove countries, however, they are often criticized for doing so and faced with payinghigher costs.lol They are also forced to wait several years before new workingrelationships with new suppliers are established.lo2 For these reasons,multinationals have already begun pressuring factories to upgrade equipment.lo3

But for those factories that refuse to pay the price to upgrade equipment on theirown, multinationals should promote the backing of low interest loans.

2. Employers should institute new training programs and providemore safety equipment to employees.

Factory owners should also provide more safety equipment and training foremployees. For instance, at one automobile component factory, an employeedescribed that when he joined the company, the company did not provide him withany training as to how to operate a machine.l~`~ Instead, the company stated that hedid not need training because he had already operated a similar machine at aprevious company.lo5 The similar machine, however, was different in that a handleand not a pedal operated it.los While this difference may seem minute, the employeeended up amputating his left thumb, l~~ leaving the question of whether propertraining may have prevented the injury.

~~ Id.sa Id.9s Retailers Face Tough Decisions After Bangladesh Factory Collapse, supra note 1.ioo jd,ioi Id,ioz jd,l03 your car has been built on an assembly line of broken fingers, SCROLL (Nov. 30, 2014, 4:00PM), http://scroll.in/article/692477/Your-car-has-been-built-on-an-assembly-line-of-broken-fingers.ioa Id,io5 Id.ios Id.ion Id.

Page ~ 26


Moreover, companies refuse to purchase safety equipment at the expense ofworker safety. One way to minimize injuries would be to purchase metal clamps toextract the finished goods from the press machines. 108 The cost of the clamps isabout Rs 25,1os which is rather cheap when compared to upgrading to machineswith sensors. However, many factories refuse to purchase the clamps because itslows down production.11o Employers should understand that worker safety is moreimportant than maximizing production. As such, they should spend the extra timeand money to train employees on how to use equipment, as doing so is not a verydifficult task and can prevent injuries. Likewise, employers need to spend money toeither purchase safety equipment for employees or upgrade to safer machinery.Perhaps the only way to make employers do these things is through governmentregulation, which will be discussed in the next section.

B. Recommendations for Indian Government

There will likely be no change in India if the Indian government does not playa bigger role in promoting workplace safety. Accordingly, the following subsectionswill describe different actions that the Indian central and state governments shouldtake.

1. Force Employers to Provide More Training for Employees andUpgrade Their Equipment

The Indian Government should force employers to upgrade to saferequipment and provide more training for workers. One way in which it can do so isby creating a mechanism to hold factory owners accountable if they fail to provideproper training or safety equipment. We propose that the mechanism should be theuse of more inspectors with increased authority to carry out domestic andinternational law.

The Indian Government should hire more inspectors to investigatecompliance with domestic law and international law. In addition, the inspectorsshould be given more authority to fine the factory owners. After we interviewed theAssistant Director of Industrial Health and Safety, we learned that there were notenough inspectors to investigate factory accidents. Furthermore, we learned thatfactories with less than 40 workers would now not be investigated due to the recent

ios Id.ios jd.uo Id,

Page ~ 27


change in Indian law. For these reasons, the Indian Government should seek toemploy more inspectors to make sure that factories are complying with domesticlaw, particularly the Factories Act, 1948.

Further, the inspectors should be able to increase the fines that factoryowners must pay if they are not complying with domestic law or international law.The amount of the fine, ideally, would be set at an amount that would incentivizethe factory owners to invest money in making their factories safer. If this iseconomically unfeasible, then inspectors should be able to fine the factory owners inaway in which they must spend the amount of the fine on making their workplacessafer. Either which way the factories get improved, the important thing to note isthat the Indian Government will likely have to be the impetus for such change.

Moreover, the Indian Government has incentive to ensure that Indianinfrastructure is upgraded.11l Although India provides some of the cheapest labor inthe world, it does not have the proper buildings, roads, ports, and power networksthat many companies desire.112 This, in turn, minimizes its competitive advantageand makes it less attractive to companies.113 As a result, companies look to China,which has invested significantly more in its infrastructure, while still providingcheap labor.114 Thus, to make India a more attractive place for business, it shouldwant to make factories improve their conditions.

Finally, another practical way to ensure that factories use safe machinery isfor the central government to directly regulate factory machine manufactures. Thecentral government, for example, could require all power presses manufactures inIndia to include safety censors.

2. Increase ESIC and Labor Department Collaboration RegardingIndustrial Injuries

As explained previously, the only way an occupational health and safetyinspector at the Labor Department investigates an industrial injury is if [1] thefactory self-reports the accident on FORM 18115 or [2] the inspector becomes awareof it through a "reliable source". However, if the goal is to investigate unsafeworkplaces where workers are injured, then it would be logical for the inspector toalso look into instances where the worker claims he was injured at work on FORM

111 India us. China: The Battle for Global Manufacturing, BLOOMBERG BUSINESS (Nov. 6, 2014),http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-06/india-vs-dot-china-the-battle-for-global-m anufacturing.112 Id.its Id,iia Id.lls See Appendix B2.

Page 128


1611 when he or she receives treatment at an ESIC hospital. For this to occur, thegovernment must statutorily or administratively require greater informationsharing between the Department of Labor and ESIC. Specifically, ESIC should berequired to share FORM 16 data with the Labor Department. Both FORM 16 & 18require essentially the same information.11? Both forms require informationregarding [1] name of factory/employer. [2] the industry, [3] Address of premiseswhere accident happened, etc. Thus, ESIC FORM 16 could act as a "reliable source"that instigates and investigation by the inspector.

The current system relies too heavily on the altruistic idea that employerswill self-report injuries that occur at their factories by submitting FORM 18 to theLabor Department. Submitting the form will open the employer up to liability andinspections that will likely result in fines or costly safety improvements. Since theemployers have these disincentives to report, there is drastic under-reporting ofaccidents. The inspector said he receives only a few FORM 18s per month!lis

However, employers are more likely to fill out FORM 16 since it is the difference (asper ESIC hospital protocol) between a worker receiving treatment at an ESIChospital or not. This is true due to basic human decency and the fact thattreatment may be costly for the employer at a private hospital whereas if they haveESI they can receive treatment for the worker at a public hospital for almostnothing.

This system is not perfect either, however. The ESIC ER doctor noted thatFORM 16 is often filled out by middlemen who bring the injured worker to thehospital (since the workers usually cannot read) and they often predictably markthat the injury was due to the worker's own negligence. Nonetheless, thisdesignation of fault is nothing more than an assertion of innocence and should beviewed suspiciously by any inspector who ultimately should decide the issue offault. The crucial information FORM 16 would provide inspectors is how manyaccidents are occurring at what factories. If many workers are coming into the ESIChospital with industrial injuries from the same factory, this would be a strongindication ("reliable source") that the factory should be inspected and the injuriesinvestigated.

Another issue is that when employers learn that ESIC FORM 16 may lead toinspections, they may stop bringing workers to public hospitals and opt for privateones. For this reason, to truly implement this alternative accident reportingmechanism, laws must be passed that require private hospitals to also fill outFORM 16 (or similar form) and submit them either to ESIC or the Department ofLabor directly. The law should impose a heavy penalty if another source leads to aninvestigation that reveals a worker received treatment at the private hospitalwithout submitting the form to the proper authority. The fine must be significant toact as a true deterrent. Despite these difficulties, having an additional mechanism

lls See Appendix B.1.11~ See Appendix B.1-2.lls See Appendix A.2.

Page 129


for industrial injuries to be reported to the Department of Labor for investigation isdesirable.

Ideally, the complete and successful implementation of this governmentalrecommendation would ensure that if any person sought medical treatment at apublic or private hospital and indicated the injury occurred at the workplace aFORM 16 would be filled out and the information gathered would be communicatedto the Labor Department (obviously, in reality, many injuries will still evadegovernmental detection but the number should be significantly reduced). Thiswould benefit the Labor Department inspectors by highlighting which factories arecontributing to the most accidents. With this knowledge, the inspectors would beable to inspect and investigate the most prevalent offenders and thus moreefficiently reduce the number of accidents.

Notably, the recommendation's implementation would also have the addedbenefit of supplying the Labor Department extremely more accurate statistics onindustrial injuries if the information was properly compiled in a database.

4. Create Greater Bifurcation of Health and Safety RegulationsBased on Factory Size

According to Inspector Rohit Beri, it is economically impossible for smallfactories to comply with the current health and safety regulations. He suggestedthat were he to strictly enforce the law he would have to shut down a multitude ofsmall factories and thousands of jobs would be lost. Thus, if strict enforcement ofthe current regulation by all inspectors were to immediately come into effect acrossIndia, the number of jobs lost would likely be significant. Moreover, the naturalconsequence of such enforcement would be to significantly raise the cost of doingbusiness in India. In turn, this translates into future jobs being lost to othercountries. For these reasons, progressive realization of the health and safetystandards commensurate with India's economic growth is the most practical andrealistic- but admittedly not the most idealistic- path forward.

Unfortunately, economic reality makes the right of all Indian workers to havework collide with their right to a healthy and safe workplace. It is the author'sopinion that the former right is logically paramount to the later for it is better tohave miserable work that puts your life at risk than to have no work with which togain the means to sustain your and your family's livelihood leading to starvation(although some might philosophically disagree).

Certain programs, such as those discussed in Part V.A.1 (e.g. partnershipwith multinationals) ease the consequences of this dichotomy by rich corporationsoffering cheap capital to small factories to increase occupational health and safety.Ultimately, however, such programs are a drop in the bucket and most smallfactories competing for work ultimately perceive that strict health and safety

Page ~ 30

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers •1 ■

compliance is not in the factories best interest since complying with all the currentregulations would put them out of business due to a lack of competitiveness. Thegoal then is to make it in their best interest. But How?

The answer is bifurcation of health and safety regulations based on factorysize combined with strict enforcement of those new progressive standards andhigher fines. As outlined by Inspector Rohit Beri, this would require thegovernment to establish a tri-partite committee of government, employer, andworker organization unions members to attempt to find the most economicallyefficient safety standards for small factories. This could be accomplished by focusingon those standards that have the greatest industrial injury prevention ability perrupe spent to implement. For example, as discussed above, instead of requiringsmall factories to have pneumatic power presses with built in sensors which cost Rs20 lakh as opposed to mechanical power presses which cost Rs 81akh, sacrificeminimal safety and allow them to have the cheaper machines as long as they installdouble hand safety mechanism for RS 28,000 or provide magnetic clamps for Rs25.119

Admittedly, bifurcation means lower standards for small factories than forlarger ones. However, the lower standards will allow inspectors to do somethingthey have never done—strictly enforce the occupational health and safety laws—without costing millions of jobs. Additionally, realistic and obtainable standardswill incentivize unlicensed factories to become legitimate and thus come within theregulatory scheme. Why? Every day factory owners weigh the economic risk ofbeing caught without a license (and the resulting fines) against the cost ofcompliance. Under current law, all too many owners decide proceeding without alicense is the more prudent economic decision for their business (sadly most onlythink of their wallet and not the wellbeing of workers). However, if you lower thecost of compliance by efficiently lowering the standards to maintain the greatestlevel of health and safety as described above and combine strict enforcement withincreased fines for operating without a license the sensible choice then converts tocompliance. Once a threshold level of compliance is achieved, then the occupationalhealth and safety standards can be incrementally raised.

Admittedly, research has not revealed that such a method is sanctioned bythe ILO. This is likely due to the fact that the ILO promulgates ideal rules andbifurcation clearly is not ideal- it is a pragmatic solution to economic realities.However, the ILO does recognize that progressive realization is sometimes required.

lls See Appendix A.6.

Page 131


Ultimately, whether one finds bifurcation acceptable is likely a result one'sphilosophical approach to human rights. In the international human rightscommunity there appears to be a divide between those who believe the best way tohelp abused workers is through a focus on the labor relations process and those thatbelieve the focus should be on labor market outcomes.12o This author believes in thelatter approach and agrees with Cornell Professor Gary S. Fields when he explainsthat "if pushed too far, too fast, the active promotion of labor standards [via an over-emphasis on the labor relations process] may hamper employment, reducecompetitiveness, and impede growth [i.e. lead to negative labor market outcomes].The poor workers of the world cannot afford this."

In the end, this recommendation may be viewed as controversial and overlyfocused on economic [i.e. labor market outcomes] as opposed to human suffering[the focus of the labor relations process]. Sadly, this may be true from an individualworker currently in a small factory point of view. However, on the macro level therecommended policy of progressive realization is likely a more efficient way toachieve widespread compliance with international occupational health and safetystandards. Currently, progressive laws are not being enforced because the"symptoms" of greater enforcement (e.g. labor market outcomes such as masslayoffs, fewer jobs) are seen as worse than the "disease" (occupational hazards). AsPart IV.A demonstrates, the current system clearly is not working. It is theauthor's opinion of that this is due to the current progressive occupational hazardlaws not being commensurate with India's level of economic development. In thelong run, it is the author's belief along with that of Inspector Rohit Beri thatprogressive realization through bifurcation will prevent the most amount of humananguish.

More research is clearly needed in this regard. Unfortunately, it is simplybeyond the scope of this report.

3. Ratify ILO Convention 155.

The reason why India has not ratified ILO C155 is because India's lawsgoverning occupational health and safety (e.g. Factories Act, Mining Act, etc.) areapplicable to only a small portion of the Indian workforce. ILO C155, on the otherhand, applies to all branches of economic activity and to all workers. As the IndianDepartment of Labor explains:

izo For a more in depth discussion on this ongoing-debate, see Gary S. Fields, Labor Standards,Economic Development, and International Trade, CORN~LL UNIVERSITY ILR COLLECTION (1990),http://digitalcom mons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&co ntext=conference.

Page ~ 32


It has always been the practice in India that we ratify a Convention when weare fully satisfied that our laws and practices are in conformity with therelevant ILO Convention. It is now considered that a better course of action isto proceed with progressive implementation of the standards, leave theformal ratification for consideration at a later stage when it becomespracticable.lzl

In an apparent deviation from this general practice, in the 36th Session of theTripartite Committee on Conventions (COC) in 2012, the recommendation in theagenda was made to ratify C155 with reservations that excluded both theAgriculture and Services Sectors since the current Safety and Health laws do notadequately protect those sectors to conform to the convention.122 Unfortunately,extensive Internet research failed to reveal the minutes or results from the COC.

It is unclear whether ratification with significant reservations would have apositive effect on the realization of occupational health and safety. Excluding theServices and Agriculture industry allows India to ratify C155 without implementingpositive changes in order to do so. Thus, it may simply be a governmental tactic toquail the mounting internal and international pressure to ratify the conventionwhile maintaining the status quo.

On the other hand, ratification, even with reservations, requires the Indiangovernment to "formulate, implement and periodically review a coherent nationalpolicy on occupational safety and Health and Environment at the workplace."123 Italso cracks the door open for the ILO to more closely monitor the situation. Thisadded emphasis may positively intensify pressure for change.

Ideally, India would change its laws to apply ILO C155 protections to allworkers and ratify without reservation. Ultimately, however, given the currentcircumstances ratification with reservations is likely better than no ratification atall. Thus, the Indian government should actively pursue this course of action.

C. Campaign Advice for SLD

SLD has already made significant strides in helping RDC workers by helpingthem become enrolled in ESI and initiating industrial injury complaints. Thefollowing campaign advice is meant to build on this progress and suggest advocacysteps for SLD and allies going forward with work on these issues. The authors hope

121 India &ILO, LABOUR.GOv.IN, 3, http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Divisions/childlabour/Website%20-%20Copy%20(1)%20gyanesh.pdf (last visited March 15, 2014).122 Thirty Sixth Session of the Tripartite Committee on Conventions, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, 19-20 (September 25, 2012), http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/latest_update/what_new/5056a62160211Agendaof36thCOCNIC.pdf.123 Id,

Page ~ 33


the advice will be a springboard for impactful action that will provide meaningfulchanges for the workers of India in this sector.

1. Advocate for Implementation of the Above GovernmentRecommendations.

A firm understanding of what both state and central governments should bedoing to improve the lives of its workforce is imperative for any workerorganization. It is hoped the above background on the relevant occupational healthand safety laws in Part III and the documentation of Factory Act violations andexplanation of the current governmental regulatory and reporting mechanisms inPart IV have served to solidify and expand SLD's knowledge concerningoccupational hazards.

Part V.B then introduced several changes the government could implementto improve the lives of workers including [1] hiring more factory health and safetyinspectors at both the state and central level, [2] overhauling the current industrialinjury reporting mechanism to create greater ESIC and Labor departmentcollaboration, and [3] creating greater bifurcation of the health and safetyregulations based on factory size, and [4] ratifying ILO convention 155.

Since each of these recommendations must be implemented by the centraland state governments, SLD's role is to put pressure on the government to takesteps towards their progressive realization. Obviously, direct pressure on theIndian government would be a dangerous game to play for any grassrootsorganization such as SLD—especially with Prime Minister Modi's Bharatiya JanataParty in power. It is one thing to publicize corporate follies and quite another tohighlight government failures.

Consequently, to the extent possible, SLD's goal should be to formulatetactics that focus public outcry against occupational hazards and injuries occurringin corporate factories. This in turn, could lead to an unsatisfied electorate thatdemands the government —particularly at the local and state levels — to takeaction against the corporations by implementing the above recommended reforms.Such indirect pressure allows the government to save face regarding its ownregulatory and reporting failures by acting as the champion of the people againstthe evil corporations. For example, continual and widespread outcry overoccupational injuries occurring at corporate factories could eventually lead tosocietal discontent (e.g. strikes, crime, etc.) that government officials attempt toquail bypassing legislation to hire more health and safety inspectors or increasehealth and safety violation fines.

Page 134


With specific regard to ILO C155, SLD should join other workersorganizations and unions in seeking its ratification. For example, formal

observations regarding C155 were submitted to the ILO by both Bharatiya MazdoorSangh (BMS) and the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) in 2008.124 However,neither has been responded to by the Indian Government. If SLD would like to getinvolved in supporting this important ratification, teaming with these powerfulunions would likely be a helpful place to start. Furthermore, SLD may reach out toJoint Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Employment GOI, Mr. A.C. Pandey,who has chaired meetings to explore the possibility of ratification of ILO C155 at:

Shram Shakti Bhawan,

Rafi Marg,

New Delhi-110001,

011-23710239 (office)

[email protected]

2. Initiate a "Reliable Source" Campaign

As learned from the interview with the Manesar Inspector, in order for aninvestigation into an occupational injury to be launched without the employer self-reporting using FORM 1$, the Labor Department Health and Safety Inspector mustbecome aware of the injury through a "reliable source". The inspector explainedthat there is no firm definition of a "reliable source". However, he revealed that, themedia, worker organizations/unions, and even individual phone calls from workerscan all qualify.125

Thus, SLD could initiate a grassroots campaign to provide Inspectors withthese "reliable sources". As discussed, the factory-inspector ratio is absurdly high.It is impossible for inspectors to verify all the licensed and unlicensed factories intheir jurisdiction are safe and healthy. Thus, the benefit of providing "reliablesources" is that it helps inspectors identify which factories contain the mostegregious occupational hazards. This, in turn, will greatly enhance the efficiencyand effectiveness and of the inspectors.

Providing the inspectors "reliable sources" could be accomplished in severalways. First, SLD could launch an education campaign that strives to provide theworkers the name and contact information of the Health and Safety Inspector in

124 Observations made by employers' and workers' organizations of India, INTERNATIONAL LABOURORGANIZATION, http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:14101:0::N0:14101:P14101_COUNTRY_ID,P14101 AR,TICLE_N0:102691,19 (last visited March 15, 2015).125 See supra Part IV.B.l.u.

Page ~ 35


charge of ensuring the safety of their particular factory. This would likely involveconducting workshops, passing out/posting flyers in a particular inspector'sjurisdiction, and disseminating the information to other workerorganizations/unions that could then share it with their members. An injured ordisgruntled worker could then anonymously (as to protect themselves fromemployer repercussions) call their inspector to notify him or her of the violationsoccurring at their workplace. The Inspector interview revealed that on severaloccasions he considered a simple phone call from a factory worker a sufficiently"reliable source" to go out and inspect the factory. Just imagine if ten or moreworkers called regarding the same factory? Ultimately, mass calling campaigns togovernment officials such as safety inspectors could be a useful union tactic in avariety of context.

Second, the workers could notify SLD about occupational hazards at theirworkplace and it could then keep a database that includes the factory name, factorylocation, occupational hazard/injuries, and the corresponding inspector's name(which could be discovered by cross referencing the factory location and inspectorjurisdictions). SLD could then provide this documentation to the relevantinspectors since workers organizations are considered "reliable sources".

Third, if the Labor Department inspector fails to act on the documentation,SLD could turn to the media. Supriya Sharma's Scroll article, Your car has beenbuilt on an assembly line of broken fingers, is a prime example of the value of themedia.12s

Ideally, this campaign could eventually culminate in statutory reform thatrequires factory owners to post the relevant inspector's name and contactinformation.

3. Conduct an Audit of Industrial Injury Statistics Audit asCompared with Doctor Interviews

As discussed above, it is commonly understood that India dramatically underreports the number of industrial injuries that take place within the country everyyear. However, there appears to be no solid statistical proof that this is true.Instead, international organizations tend to simply estimate the number of injuriesin India using similarly situated country's injury statistics that are more reliable.

To help Indian citizens and the world to more fully understand the extent ofdebilitating injuries occurring daily, SLD could initiate an extensive report in which

12s See Appendix A.6.

Page 136


it randomly selects and survey's hundreds of doctors throughout India (to make itmore representative of India as a whole and statistically useful). The survey wouldinclude asking for estimations of the amount of industrial industries they treatevery month. This estimation could be averaged and then extrapolated bymultiplying it by 12 (months) and the total number of doctors in India. Due to theextensiveness of this project, SLD should seek to partner with other workerorganizations, unions, and universities such as JNU.

Ultimately, it is hoped that such proof would be a valuable tool to helpconvince the United Nations Special Repertoire to come investigate the "AssemblyLine of Broken Fingers."

4. Provide Worker Peer to Peer Health, Safety and TechnicalTraining in the Sector

The lack of technical training by employers leads to preventable industrialaccidents. For example, in Supriya Sharma's Scroll article she relates the followingdisturbingly common experience:

Arvind Kumar is all of 19. He lost his left thumb this month while operatinga power press at a company called Antech Engineers Private Limited, whichmakes clutches and stands for scooters and motorcycles...Arvind Kumar joined the company at the start of November but was notgiven any training before he was made to operate the machine. "They said Ididn't need it because I had worked on the power press of another companyfor 6 months," he said. "But the machine in the previous company wasoperated with a handle while the machine at Antech had a pedal." 12~Six months of training on a machine without safety equipment that is

responsible for thousands of crush injuries a year in India alone is clearlyinsufficient!

To help alleviate this problem, SLD could help establish a mentoringprogram that teams experienced workers in their field with inexperienced ones.SLD could also ask experienced or even retired workers to share their acquiredknowledge on how to use common high injury machines such as the power pressesresponsible for severing the RDC worker's fingers.

Lastly, the Anonymous ESIC ER doctor noted that he will conduct severalhealth and safety trainings per year as a requirement of his public employment.Likewise, SLD could actively seek out and organize private doctors to volunteer todo the same.

12~ Id.

Page 137


Conclusion

Although India has adequate laws regarding occupational safety, they are noteffectively implemented. Through our field research, we saw first-hand the effects ofthe poor implementation of India laws. Namely, workers are constantly at risk ofinjury due to operation of unsafe machines, lack of proper training, and inadequatesafety gear. At the core of the problem is companies' choice to maximize output atthe expense of worker safety. In addition, companies often do not have the capital tomake the necessary changes to comply with international and domestic law. As aresult, the Indian government will allow factories to continue operations withoutcorrecting legal violations. In order to f~ these problems, there will need to beaction from both employers and the Indian government. SLD, for its part, canfacilitate the progressive realization of worker safety by implementing therecommendations in this report.

Page 138


Interview Transcri isp1. Anonymous, ER Doctor, ESIC hospital in Manesar

2. Rohit Berri, Assistant Director of Industrial Health and Safety ("Inspector"),Ministry of Labor and Employment

3. Rajesh and Raj Kumar, Injured Auto Factory Workers, RDC Imports(accompanied by copies of Raj Kumar's ESI registration details and Form 16)

4. Santosh Gupta, Injured Aluminum Factory Worker, Kiran Udhyog

5. Vishweshwar Rai, Injured Plastic Factory Worker, Unknown (accompaniedby copies of his private hospital medical records, ESI registration details, andForm 12)

6. Supriya Sharma, Scroll article, Your car has been built on an assembly line ofbroken fingers

Occupational Hazards Interviews 1 ■

Position: ER DoctorEmployer: ESI Hospital in ManesarGender: MaleContact: N/AInterviewers/format: Craig, Keivan, and Tapan (face-to-face)Summarized by: CraigTime location: Main ESI Hospital in Manesar (Jan. 4th; limited to 1/2 hour)Recording File: N/A

1. For what types of workplace injuries do migrant workers usually seektreatment at your hospital?

Usually the accidents are work related and involve crush injuries, eyeinjuries, heat burns, chemical burns, etc.

a. Can you describe how these injuries typically occur?Usually the crush injuries are made by machine presses.

b. In your educated opinion, in what type of industries do you see themost injuries?

Most injuries come from small factories. Bigger factories suchas Honda and Maruti have better safety and less industrial accidents.

c. Are most injuries minor or severe? Curable or incurable?Question not asked due to time constraints.

d. What are the usual causes of worker injuries? Machines? Chemicals?Falling?

See Question la.

e. Can you describe some of the most severe industrial injuries you haveencountered as a doctor?

The most severe injuries are those involving the spine andpelvis. Usually these injuries are fatal before they reach him at thehospital. The doctor sees around 2-3 of these types of injuries per year.

f. What are the major contributors to workers injuries (forcedovertime/sleepiness, un-maintained machines, lack of safetyequipment, worker negligence, etc.)?

The doctor blamed both unsafe working conditions and theworker's negligence. He was frustrated with workers who refuse to

Interviety: Anonymous ESIC ER Doctor Page 1

Occupational Hazards Interviews

wear safety equipment in circumstances where it is offered by thecompany.

In your opinion, does ESI properly function for the worker? Are there anylimitations on care for those using ESI as compared to those with privatehealth insurance or paying out-of-pocket?

The Doctor believed that ESI was working very well. He claims that90% of workers in the Auto Industry have ESI and that the number is

growing. Those without ESI are not allowed to be treated atESIC hospitals unless it is an emergency (like USA cannotturn away patients in these circumstances). He claimed thatin many instances "ESI is God to them [the workers]" becausethere is no way that they could otherwise afford the high costof medical care.

3. When a patient identifies the workplace as the locationof the injury, are you required to report this to any agency?

How is this done? If there is a form, may I see it? If you notice many injuriesoccurring at a particular workplace, is there any mechanism to report this to

authorities (e.g. inspectors)?According to our best understanding, the doctor explained that if a

person comes in with an injury then the police will be called. We were unableto clarify the exact reason for the call to the police. Explanations between the

interviewers ranged from the police being called to verify the patient was not

involved in crime to only being called if the patient invoked criminality as the

cause of the accident (e.g. employer assault as opposed to an industrialaccident).

The doctor also mentioned that ESIC requires FORM 16 describing thecause of the accident to be filled out. However, since many of those injuredare illiterate, often times the supervisor who brought the worker to thehospital will fill the form out for them.

When pressed as to what follow up there was after the completion ofthe form, the doctor waived his hand and said that he did not know. It was

then out of his hands.

4. According to national statistics (see chart on inspector interview sheet), therewere only 668 fatal industrial injuries and 5,983 non-fatal injuries in India in

2009. Do you believe these statistics accurately reflect reality? In yourestimation, what is the actual number? Why are the statistics inaccurate?

The doctor never outright asserted thestatistics were inaccurate and appeared not to ~ ' ' 'want to comment on government statistics. ' "'Would he would say, however, is that he ~ ~ ~personally saw approximately 20 patients perweek. Out of the 20 patients, approximately 5-10

Interview: Anonymous ESIC ER Doctor Page 2

Occupational Hazards Interviews 1

involve industrial injuries. Stated differently, one doctor in one hospital willapproximately treat between 250 and 500 industrial injuries a year' Thisstrongly suggests that there is significant under reporting of industrialinjuries in the national statistics.

5. How accessible do you believe hospitals are to workers? Have youencountered any instances where the lack of access to a hospital hassignificantly delayed the worker's treatment (potentially contributing theseverity of the injury)?

Question not asked due to time constraints. However, in anothercontext, the doctor stated that if the hospital finds out a major accidentoccurs at a factory that effected many people it has the ability to increasestaff to handle the increased demand.

6. From your perspective, what do you think would make conditions safer forthe workers?

Question not asked due to time constraints.

7. Can you describe the medical effects of the working conditions (noise, fumes,welding, back pain, stress, etc.) to which your patients axe exposed?

The doctor noted that the main long term effect he sees is respiratoryproblems. Specifically, respiratory problems in the cotton textile industrieswere prevalent as well as "temporary" effects from the burning of the lungsby chemical fumes. When pressed whether unhealthy working conditionswere contributing to higher instances of disease, he said that this was veryrare. He also claimed that the noise at factories was not an issue becauseemployees were given ear muffs.

8. As a doctor at an ESI hospital, to what extent are you able to providepreventative care? Does ESI cover any preventative care?

This exact nature of these questions appears to have been lost intranslation. However, it elicited the response that the doctor would go tofactories and conduct classes on proper worker safety including some basicfirst aid (e.g. what to do in instances of chemical burns). However, he wasnever permitted beyond the reception area of the factories so he has notpersonally seen the safety conditions.

Employee State Inauronce Corporation Logo

Interview: Anonymous ESIC ER Doctor Page 3

Occupational Hazards Interview Summaries ~. 1 ~~

Position: Assistant Director of Industrial Health and Safety ("Inspector")Jurisdiction: Gurgaon III, including IMT Manesar (all sectors)Employer: Ministry of Labour and EmploymentGender: MaleContact: 0124-2225004, Mini Secretariat, GurgaonInterviewers/format: Craig, Keivan, & Gunjan (face-to-face)Summarized by: Craig (reviewed and supplemented by Keivan and Tapan)Time location: Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon (Jan. 5th; 13:00-14:15)Recording File: N/A

1. Could you generally describe the Labor Inspection Structure and

Process here in India?

There are two wings —the Labour

Wing and the Factory Wing. The Labour

wing handles labor disputes directly and the

Factory wing (what he termed the technical

side of the Department of Health and Safety

consisting of engineers).

LabourBureauGovernmentor l~a~a

The hierarchy of inspectors of the factory wing is as follows:1. Joint Directors: Inspects factories with >1000 workers2. Deputy Directors: Inspects factories with between 500-1000

workers3. Assistant Directors: Inspects factories with <500 workersEach Director is given a specific jurisdiction (with the size of the

jurisdiction increasing from Assistant Director to Joint Director to account forthe larger number of smaller factories). He explained that as the AssistantDirector over Manesar he is in charge of inspecting all registered factoriesthere and must investigate all FORM 18 non-fatal injuries (if the injury isfatal then the Deputy Director will investigate).

When the Inspector when receives a FORM 18 Accident Report, whichis to be filed by an employer when an accident occurs at the factory, he willgo investigate the accident at the factory, take pictures, review medicalrecords, write a report, etc. within 15 days. Even without a FORM 18 filed hemay also investigate if he is put on notice by a "reliable source" that an injuryoccurred. What constitutes a "reliable source" is undefined, but he said thatoften times it will be the media, NGOs, or even the workers themselves thatcall his office to report they were injured.

Interview: Rohit Beri, Health &Safety Inspector Page 1

Occupational Hazards Interview Summaries 1

2. What are some of the most common working condition violations you see

when inspecting factories on a day to day basis?The Inspector identified 5 common violations on which he focuses:

a. Fire Hazards (e.g. No sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, etc.)

b. Electrical Hazards (Water near electricity, lack of rubber mats,

etc.)c. Lack of Lifting Machine Experts (i.e normal workers are not

properly trained to operate heavy lifting machinery, such as

forklifts, which leads to accidents)

d. Heavy Machinery Hazards (i.e. old or budget machinery that

lacks proper safety equipment such as motion sensors). Notably, he

mentioned machine presses lead to a significant number of injuries

—especially to fingers (see RDC).

e. Lack of Factory License (i.e. illegal factories that are not

properly registered with the state). Importantly, he noted that

notice before inspection as per protocol is not required for

unlicensed factories.

3. What are the characteristics of companies that are the major violators?

SmalULarge? Foreign/Domestic? Which Industries?

He identified small (<100 workers) to medium (100-200 workers)

companies are the major health and safety violators. As explained in more

detail below, this is because the smaller factories simply cannot afford to

comply with all of the regulations. When asked about large companies such

as Honda and Murati-Suzuki, he was adamant that they were some of the

safest factories in Gargoan and explained that they even conducted safety

drills.

4. Are there any companies that you recognize as taking the lead on providing

safe and healthy work environments based on their own initiative?

This question was not asked directly due to time constraints.

However, as described in Question 3 the Inspector identified large and

foreign companies as being particularly compliant with the health and safety

regulations. In particular, he identified Japanese companies as maintaining

safe factories.


Occupational Hazards Interview Summaries 1

5. Are you familiar with the 2009 Statistics of Factories Report commissionedby the LABOUR BUREAU, MINISTRY OF LABOUR &EMPLOYMENT,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CHANDIGARH/SHIMLA? Regarding Injuries,it states:Year Fatal In urles Non-Fatal In urles All Injuries

NumbBr FrequencyRats parone latchmandaysworked

Number FrequencyRata parone lakhmandaysworked

Number FrequencyRate perone latchmandaysworked

1 2 3 4 5 6 7200'1 627 0.07 27737 3.17 28364 3.242002 540 0.13 19913 4.75 20453 4.882003 525 0.08 15907 2.42 16432 2.502004 562 0.05 14458 1.28 15020 1.332005 613 0.05 14163 1 .21 14776 1 _272006 1068 0.08 18844 1.34 19912 1.422007 821 0.09 14469 1.64 15290 1.732008 478 0.07 5494 0.8'1 5972 0.882009 668 0.09 5983 0.77 6651 0.85

Note: Based on Annual Returns received from different States/Union

Do you believe these numbers to be an accurate reflection of reality based onyour experience? What are your thoughts on the accuracy of the currentnationallstate industrial injury reporting mechanism?

The Inspector first dismissed these statistics as old and that he did notknow where they came from. We admitted they were more than 5 years oldbut informed him that they were directly from theMinister of Labor and Employment. Whenpressed, he did not want to directly reflect on thenumbers. However, anecdotally he offered that heinvestigates 20-25 FORM 18 industrial injuries peryear. Multiplying this by the 20 or so inspectors inHaryana alone, he assumed that the number ofinjuries was likely higher than the statisticsshowed. Note that the inspector was referring only to Form 18 instigatedinvestigations of injuries. Logically, the number of injuries would be thatmuch higher if one includes those injuries that go unreported.

6. As an inspector, what do you think the Indian government could do better toensure the health and safety of Indian Workers?

This question was not asked directly due to time constraints.However, see response to Question 9 below for areas of improvement that theInspector identified.

7. As per recent legislation, major portions of the Factories Act of 1958 will notbe applicable to factories employing less than 40 ppl which means that 90% ofthe workforce will not have the benefit of your inspections according to the


Occupational Hazards Interview Summaries ~

Asian Monitor Resource Centre. What are your thoughts? Do you believe

more people should fall under Inspector protection?The Inspector largely dismisses the change in the law as having little

or no real practical effect since most of the factories in his highly

industrialized jurisdiction already have more than 40 workers. He admitted,

however, that factories with less than 40 workers now will not have technical

Health and Safety Inspections.

8. In its 2012 report, Invisible Victims of Development: Workers' Health andSafety in Asia, the AMRC reported that regulators such as yourself arewoefully under-staffed, with just one factory inspector for every 506registered factories. Indeed, official government statistics show that inSeptember 2011 DGFASLI's total staff numbers stood at just 263. Do youbelieve your department to be understaffed? Do you think having moreinspectors would improve working conditions?

The Inspector was adamant that more inspectors were not needed inhis particular jurisdiction or in Gurgoan generally. He explained that thereare several different types of inspectors (e.g. from H&S, ESIC, etc.) and thatthis layered approach is effective. However, he admitted that perhaps moreinspectors where needed in other areas but that he did not know for sure.

9. If you had unlimited resources, what would an ideal inspection apparatus

involve?

First, the Inspector advocated for greater bifurcation of the current

regulatory machinery corresponding to the size of the factory. In other

words, smaller factories would have lower safety and health standards than

larger ones. He reasoned that there is no

way the smaller factories can possibly meet

the current standards due to costs barriers.

In other words, having more realistic

standards would be helpful since right now

none of the smaller factories can afford to

comply with them.

Additionally, the Inspector mentioned

that a private safety committee should be

formed to revise safety standards. However,

due to time constraints we were unable to

clarify what this committee would do or who the members would be. It is

possible that he wanted this committee to come with the bifurcated

regulations described above.


Occupational Hazards Interview Summaries

Second, the Inspector suggested that companies should be required to

obtain a Health and Safety Inspection before they are able to obtain a factory

license.

10. If you could improve just one area of worker safety what would it be and

why?This question was not asked due to time constraints. However, the

five common violations outlined in Question 2 (fire hazards, electricalhazards, lack of lifting machine experts, heavy machinery hazards, andlack of factory licenses) are those that he is currently focusing on in order to

improve worker safety. He also mentioned that finger amputations were

likely the most prevalent injuries so it could be deduced that heavy

machinery hazards are near the top of the list.

11.Are there any specific statistical reports or other resources that you believe

we would find useful in documenting, statistically or otherwise, health and

safety in the Indian workplace?

This question was not asked directly due to time constraints.

Nonetheless, during the course of the interview he identified Form 18 as the

form filled out by employers when an industrial injury occurs on its premises.

Also see Question 5 for his general thoughts on the accuracy of injury

statistical reports.

TAKEAWAYS:

1. There appears to be a lack of communication between ESIC (utilizingFORM 16 where patient can identify the cause and location of the injury asthe workplace) and the Department of Labour and Employment (utilizingFORM 18 which must be filled out by the employer if an industrial injuryoccurs) since the inspector admitted that he has never investigated aworkplace because it was identified as the scene of injury in FORM 16. Inother words, the only way the investigates an injury at a particularfactory is if the factory self-reports the accident on FORM 18.

However, if the goal is to identify unsafe workplaces and inspect them,then it would be logical for the inspector to look into instances where theworker claims he was injured at work on FORM 16 and not just the unlikelyscenario where the factory voluntarily reports that an industrial injuryoccurred on FORM 18.

Another step that could be taken is a grassroots campaign is to educateworkers in particular jurisdictions who their Health and Safety Inspector andprovide his contact information. In this way, injured workers could call the


Occupational Hazards Interview Summaries

inspector directly and act as a "reliable source" (especially if multiple workerscall about a particular factory) that would push the Inspector to investigate.

2. Bifurcation of Health and Safety Standards based on the size of thefactory as suggested by the inspector should be carefully analyzed as apotential solution to the dilemma that the current health and safetyregulatory mechanism is economically unrealistic for smaller factories.



Name: Rajesh and RajkumarPosition: Auto Factory WorkersEmployer: RDC ImportsGender: MaleContact: N/AInterviewers/format: Craig, Keivan, and Tapan (face-to-face group interview)Summarized by: KeivanTime/location: Manesar (Jan. 4th)Recording File:

1. What do you do for work?Works with machine that presses a part that is a component of a car.

2. How many hours a day do you work?l 0 hours a day. Does not work double shifts. Get two hours of overtime per day.

Whenever the employees want a day off, they are allowed to take it by giving priornotice.

3. Can you describe your working conditions?Company has abuut 75 ~vurl:c;rs. l here are about 3-4 middlemen. The employees do not

have any ID card indicating that they work for the company, but there is a register where they

must check in each day. The owner doesn't listen when the employees complain about

occupational hazards. One time, an employee began filming an occupational hazard on his phone

and someone alerted the owner. The Owner then went up to the employee, slapped him, kicked

him out, and fired him.

4. Have you or someone you know ever been injured on the job?Both workers' tingei•s were chopped of1~fi•om working with a press machine. Rajesh's pointer

finger was chopped off (see Figure 1), and Raj's middle and ring fingers were chopped off (see

Figure 2).

Figure 1 Figure 2

Worker Interview:Anonymous ER ESIC Doctor Page 1


5. Can you describe the injury?These injuries were the result of putting their hands into press machines and not

pulling their hands out in time. The press machines press down on metal sheets to stampout a finished product. The workers then have to stick their hands into the machines topull out the finished product. The machines do not have sensors that prevent these typesof injuries from occurring. A button that must be manually pressed controls the machines.Both workers believe that occasionally the machine will close by itself. Consequently,they believe that it was during one of these times that they had their fingers chopped off.

6. Did you seek medical treatment?Yes. Employer sent them to a private hospital at first to get treated. After the

treatment was completed, he was sent to ESI. Worker suspects this was done to skip thelegal reporting requirement to the police (ESI is supposed to report the injury to thepolice as soon as an injured worker comes in to verify that the injury actually occurred onthe job. ESI asks the police for any reports that would indicate that the injury occurredoutside of the working context).

7. How/where did the injury occur?The injury occurred when the employee stuck his hand in the machine to pull out

the finished product. The machine came down atld smashed his hand.

8. What effect did the injury have on your ability to provide for you and your family?Worker stated that losing a finger made him sad, especially given that there is

nothing that he could do to get his finger back.

9. Did you employer do anything to help you with your injury (pay for medical treatment orpaid time of fl?

No. Rajesh stated that after the injury, he was demoted to the lower paid positionof "helper." Rajesh's employer told him that he would get his old job back once he gotmedical clearance from his doctor. However, once he got his medical clearance, hisemployer refused to give him back his old job.

10. In your opinion, what safety rules or precautions could have been in place that wouldhave prevented the accident?

The employees suggested that a tool to extract the finished metal product from thepress would help them do their job safely. The employees suggested that the tool maybemagnetic. This would allow them to extract the finished product without getting theirfingers chopped off.

11. Did your employer enroll you in the Employee State Insurance (ESI)?Yes.

i. If YES, were you able to use the insurance (e.g. had access to hospital thataccepted it)?

Was able to use ESI after being taken to the ESI hospital.

Worker Interview:,Anonymous ER ESIC Doctor Page 2

Occupational Hazards Interviews 1 ~

ii. How would you rate your level of care on a scale of 1 to 10?Uid not ask.

iii. If NO, does your employer provide you with any other type of private healthinsurance? OR Did you employer provide hospital care for the injury out of pocket(e.g. so that employer avoids employee going to a ESI hospital and beingreported)? How would you rate the medical care on a scale of 1 to 10?

'~

12. Have you or someone you know been exposed to hazardous elements at work includingsmoke, asbestos, petroleum products, silicon, plastics, welding of certain metals, highdecibel noise?

~l~h~y are not ex}~used to hazardous elements.

i. How do you believe this exposure has affected your health (e.g. cancer, hearingloss, back pain, vision loss, skin problems, etc.)?

N/A

ii. Are you provided any safety clothing or equipment to protect you from theseelements (e.g. welding helmets, respirators, gloves, eye protection, ear plugs, etc.)?

They are provided with what seems to be wool gloves. I~owever, these gloves do

not provide too much protection because they deteriorate after about two hours. At that

time, the workers ask their employer for another pair, and the employer will typically

grant them an additional pair. The employer will not, however, provide them with more

than two pairs of gloves during one work shift.

13. Have you or someone you know had a psychological issue as a result of the high stress,lack of rest, unhealthy work environment, etc.

Did not ask.

Describe the induced psychological effects and why you attribute them to yourwork environment.

ii. How does an unsafe and unhealthy work environment affect your overall well-being?

,~

14. Please describe what you would consider the ideal safe and healthy workingenvironment?

They want a tool to grab the final product from the pressing machine. The employees also

wish that they could form a union that would allow them to hold their employer accountable.

They are currently working on forming such a union.



i. Overall, what can you as workers do to demand this ideal work environment?Fonn a union.

ii. Have you or anyone you know had any success in receiving safer workingconditions from employers? If so, how did you go about instigating the change?

Did not ask.

Take Away: mployers will take the workers to private hospitals in order to avoid havingto file a Form 16, which triggers an inspection on the workplace by the Ministry of Labourand Employment. Employees appear to be interested in whether they got treatment,whether they will get their job back after the treatment, and whether the conditions of theirworkplace improved after their injury.

Worker Interuiew:Anonymous ER ESIC Doctor Page 4

E~dPLOYEES S1aT[ I€~SURANCE CORPORATION

j ~ TEMPORARY IDENTITY CERTIFICATE

I~,,., c] f ~•~5, ka~ Kumar

r.r•.~~~~~ 691216422'

DatN of krg s;r~;~~• 1J.Od120t2

YOUR REGI97R:.TtON DETAILS

EmDbYN Hams : .aa~

N.un~ol iaNglHutband.

M umar ~!

K~kYA PRASAD~._1.~....~—

Vlll•KAKROiA.D~stGurpamHary:~r~a

~~anesar, HR (ESIS Disp.)

TY W of Un~Dildy ' Nona

1U'07/19H5pals of Birth : _ _

t;vi~Aar: !.1

Perman~ntAddnts VILL-DARIYAPUR.D~slMunyet.8ihar.

i MaritalStaWs: ':.~rr~

~ Pr~s~ntAddr~ss:

Dispensary I IMP:

~ Current Empbyer Details p~~vioua I:mplo~sr Details

Employer's Cody No.: 890004902 0001001 Employer's Codu No.: None

Sub UmYs Colo No.: None Sub Un~t't Code No.: None

Date of Appointment : 10/032012 Tnvious Insurance No. None

~~ Name of Employer : EXCELLENT MAKPOWER SOLUTIONS Name of Employer : None

Address of Employer : 894-B,GALI r:0 3FIRST FLOOR.ASHOKVIHARRAILWAY

Address of EmployQr : None

~J

Namo Relationship wkh tho Employs Date of Birth Whether Residing witA I Sht~ DistrktHUSBHU DEVI Spouse Oa'06I7988 Ycs Haryana GurpoonUSHI Dependant unmametl daughter 06104!2011 Yes Haryana Gurgeon

LKrtUSBHUDEVISpouse T100 ~VILL-DARIYAPUR,BiharD~st.Munger ~Documents. Uploaded:none

Flease Verify the Above Particulars.Please Notify Your Employer or in the Branch Office Address Below Incase of P.ny Information Fourd Incorrect.To gef permanent /D card, employee is requested to visit the following branch o.Hice to get biometnc d photo captured by ;1us date2~J4/2012 , in fhe Below Branch Once : BO-Gurgaon,GURGAON, or ang nearest ESIC Bio-metric Camo Locatiuns.

Signature ~ LTI of Regis~ered Employee f IPARx Your Family Nl~ofoaraph ht6re.(.+~:::cd,:~C ~!a~~~ped by Empbyer / ESIC O~aal)

'~~ _ _ ,

/ ~~`;.

-~-.~. vMobile Number : ~'a ~ ,~

NOTE: L?lease Keep this Prinrout for Future Referents and Briny thb Alorq with Your Ptoto 10 Card for All Your Claim P.erafits antl Medical Benefits . ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~—

2 This Copy Should be ReUmed wdh You until the Biometnc Cab is Dlapalched. "~ ~ ~ "Employer to please affix empbyee end his Iamiiy ptwto here end attest with official stamp across ~ ' '....'~~ ~ J`y Jj~

Signature /Stamp of ESIC Officer / Emp!cyer

'`/... , s., „~ ~. , r---~

Scanned by Ca_mScanner. _ --

r

ACCIOL:N? REPOrt ~ ~RUty! i:'r'~=t. ; i E:~z

~~~~• - -

~_ ~. ~ ... .. .._. ... .. ,-.r ~.. RUC S'cc ti .'.:~~, rd Sr .,_c_ r..+, _,_

Plot No tSiO Sec•811t? :.,,3~esa~Gurc~aon • 1220^ ~M~nufactur~ng ct;.u~o Pars

5 D~,pa.t ,,•...i si,1+, Hours. (~f anyi t=ress Slop^d eta_! o'ace where the acC~dent happened St,~ft 8 00 APA to 4 30'x•1

5 Name cf ;he ~n~ured person RAJ KUF~IAF2

7 Insurance No 6,22164221

8 Address of the inured person V~li Kakrola, Gurgaon

9 (a) Sex Male(b) Age (last birthday) 10/07/1985(c} Occupation of ~n~ured person Service — Pre~•s Operator(dl Local Office to which attached C~v~l Lines, Gurgaon

10 Date and hour e. accident 27/10/2012 4 00 Pm

(a1 f;eur at which he started work on day ui acc~denl(b) ~PJhether wages ~n full or part are pay•+ht^ to him Full

f or the d2y of his accident~r} ~Jhe,her the ~n~ured person was or thy: fay of Yes

~~i 1h~ F.cl and wtt~•ther Contn'uu;i0r tir; •, payarle6y him !or the day on which the acr,~c~en! oca.rred

11 Caine o` acader.t

1a) If caused by machinery, -(~) give name o(the machine a~~d part causing the accident, and Press iJfactili:e(ii) State whether ~t was moved by mecnarical power at that i~me Yes

(b) State exactly what the injured person was doing at that time Working on machinelc) In your ooinion, was the m~ured person at she time of acc~deni --- iJe

(i) acting in contravention of thy: ~>rovisions of any law applicable :o him, or(u) acting in contravention of ary orders given by or on behalf of his employer. or(iii) Acting awihout instruction frc ~,~ his employer

!d) In case reply to (c) (i). (ii) pr (ni) ~s in affinr~at~ve, state ~rohe!her the act .vas done for the purpose can in connertion with the employer's trad•i ~r business ~`. A.

12 In case the acadent while traveling in the ec:; I,:yer's transpor~ state whether --- N ,C.;r, the Inured person was trav~ei~ng as a passenger to a from h~~ o!ace of vaor:;(~:) the inured person was Lavel;ng wdh the sxpross ~r irp!.ed p2m~~iss~cn o. ;,.,;employer. and(~n; the uansport ~s b2~ng operr,n~c! bg o, cn behalf o~ the employer cr soy^e oCr.e• personCy tivhom it is prOwded m p~.r:•t: nCe or arr3rgaments rnade wi'r, ;he emr;~y~~• endi.•/~ Tha vah!CIP ~NAC ha~nn / nnf .,oinn nncrofn'1 ~.. ~t,.. ..-.......... __

Scanned by CamScanner

!? j P.A~ ~r^.~.

(2) AJcET

~b~ (at Nature and extent of injury

Left hand Index, Middle & ~~ina ~ :small fir~aer crush ~niury

~~) Lc cation of injury.

Left hand Index, Middle &Virg & j~mall finger crush

injury

If the accident is not fats! state wh~e!(.er

the injured person has return

rece ed orris receiving

(d) (~) erson~;,) I. so, date and

hour of return to w

Physician, dispensary or hospital from

wnurn or where the inured p

~ ~a~ P the injured persontreatment i dispensary /penal doctor. el.,cted ley

~b ~ Name ~ ital, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon

Janta Hosp

~ ~;~ Has injured person

died (~) NO respE~t

ii If so, date of death (i~)

~~ nd belie] the above particulars

are correct in ever

'y that to the best of

my knowledge a

Signaturepesignation .... ..........

_,,,.art~mp~oyer's

name..... .

~.... ~,~

~'' ~"

.


rJan~e a~~d ~~~~ess of v,~;~~s~~~

(1 i RA.! PA.L

(2) AJEE i

(b} (a~ Nature and extent of injury.Left hand I~~+ex, Middle & Rinp ~ :~mal~ finger crush injury

(c) Lc cation of injury.Left hand Index, Middle &Ring & :.mall finger crush injury

(d) (i) If the accident is not fatal state whether the injured person has return to work. No(i~) If so, date and hour of return to work.

~ (a) Physiaan, dispensary or hospital from whe,rn or where the injured person received or is receivingtreatment.(b) Name of dispensary I penal doctor, elected by the injured person

Janta Hospital, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon

7. (i) Has injured person died (i) No(ii) If so, date of death (ii)

.y that to the best of my knowledge and belies the move particulars are correct in every respect.

~f dispatch of report Signature ..............................Designation ..............................Employer's name ................:.... ,~;~:

.~(;~" £;;.~4~T Address ......................... ~~~,.

.. .k~• 1 .~,)~~~: ,_ Code Nv .........................`%

,,~ .r ~s -


ACCIDE1~11~ REPOR'±~'=FtUM CfJ~F'LUYEht

in~gu~_,;~::,:-, ~3j

;game _ _ --.a ~,~,

~mp~~re~s C^tl~'Jc

F.7dress of ~rFm~s~s where acc~~~en, naopenec

a Nacu~_ ;i ~~.~~.~st.ry o~ bus.ness

5 Oepan;nert shift hours, (~f anyl

and exact place •,vhere the accid2M happened

6 Name ct ;he ~n~ured person

7 Insurance No.

8 Address of the inured person

9. (a) Sex(b) Age (Iasi birthday)

(c) Occupation of Injured person

(d) Local Office to which attached

10 Date and hour o. accident

(al Iieur at which he started work on day ar acadent

(b) ~Plhether wages in full or part are pa;~:+bl~ l0 hlRl

For the day of his accident.

1r! ''Jhether the inured person was on thr: day of

...., f.. fir, amn!n~ ;aa ?^•, G~@ft~•8~. '.^. ~~:~ :!IOfI 2~9)

:it the Ac;t and whether contnbutior~ v::.~, payai:ie

6y him !or the day on which the accirtEr~t occ+:rred

11 i:au~e o` acader.t

:x^,efe^~ ~;;ar;CCv.P.r So!utiens

69000-~9O2 ~(liU I Orl t

RDC Steels 3, A~~~ed Sen~~~es Pvt .td

Plot No t90 Sec-8,IM ~ ;:ianesar

Gurgaon - t2200~R4anuiactur~ng of Auto Paris

1=ress ShopShift 8.00 AM to 4.30 PAd

RAJ KUMAR

6922164221

Vill. Kakrola, Gurgaon

Male10/07/1985Service — Pre::s OperatorCroil Lines, Gurgaon

27/10/2012 4.00 Pm

Full

Yes


~- t

R~~qu~~st fur information under Rip,Ft to Infurmation Act, 1.005. (S' C,urjan Sin

Eh)

... , ,.,~,,, r~~.~ ,.~~,~r fl~~ :-1 ~ate~1 1/ , . 1C]4 0~ tie suC~~c . ~. ,~ .,.

;., U~.•'h.•, ofi,ce rrc~~rd. O~E•~s~' f~- ~ th~~ r,~~lery mentioned information ~5 dc~si~ed vide

,, .., ,

vd ~, ~ ..gars HeP~Y

U~ ; ~s vl a_: ~1~••,t (~~` +~~ ~typesi ~n RAC ~ ns peg t•us o~f~te~ ~e;c • ;, ~l ~\c +:v:•.~~'

5~~ r i ~, t.ii:e~ Serv~u~s Wt. ltd, Plot No • had occurred on dated 21.3 ~U14

:`+" ~?~ ter d, IMT M~~~esar G.{Y~~un (n~rr

i ;1. ,.

• 'r i~, ; o' a.;~-,~~ 'v <en ~Y,,r,,;t such ~ 'his ol(iCe had cUnd~.;:te'~ the .€cCi~ie~~:

-~.1,; your ~"v, ~ c~nqu:ry and reNort hacl a;sc~ sr.r~t [o thu

c:,r,prtent authur~ty _ Ct ~•r` ,~} •~::t•~~ ~;

factories HaryanJ, Cha~;J,,~arh for turtnari 'action.

.. c:? ~ ~;pc~ctinn report a~~o 'one ur The inspection v:as ~!r...,~ ti cond :c turd .~;~c

.. 'r n ;,~srd by inspection ~~?hoiity on 'prosecution launche~.1 it t~ e Ho ~' ~I~ CJ~"

:~ r ,~a~~~c •~.ed by Ar~annya Bhattacnarjoe ;Court Gurgaon and ac:~de~~t en;; my h~

:.~~~•~ ~~:.?.J. ~1•~ a~a 0: 9.204. 'also been conduc;c~u ~ ;.f ~....:: i•,~c :~i~c~

;ent to the compe.ei~: .+ut;wii~y i e~. (:h;~;

Insuector of Facluries riarydlld, C~~a:~di~arh ,

for further acU~r~ ;r:qy ~f ~~,h~•.:h are-

att~ctled hE~rewitf;.

• ~ -` -~.~~ tv;•~ repp•t, sanCUon ICttef J~(I ~fUSeCU21Gf1.

Assistant Director

Industrial Safety & ~~~at;hGurgaon-III


2 6 3 & 4 Factory Building Plan and certi~c~tc ~,f' alt~hility hjia €url /f~f %~~q~~~Yr-

', ~ accepted in writing from the Chief Inspect~,r nl' l'rwln€ira. llaiyn~

Chandigarh.___

Rule — 110 Muster Roll in Form No. 25 ar any nthcr rcgi.a~cr u»r~j~~ir~nK ~Iv~ ::~rr,~

ofPFR 1952 information in respect of workers (~,und w~,rkinq Fit Ihf; r€rnr ~,f ir~,~r~~.i€~,~,

I not produced for checkup on dcm~ncl.

~ 45 69 First aid box not distinguish marked ~~nd n~~t c~,n~;~inc~l tf€r, s,rt~~,lF~ j,rr~,r;~ri~

in Rule 69.

5 7A Standard Operating Procedure f~~r v~riauti ~,pe;r~ti~,ns :,re n~,~ pr<:~r.~r~:~f :ur!

r displayed.

6 32 Passage &ways are not found free from ob~truc:ti~mK malCri~,l <;t~u;k~rl ~,r, +1:~~

i I passageway.

( 7 38 66 Fire Fighting arrangements are found inadequ~tc d~c fire f;mrru~.ri~:y ~.•;~.~jx

} routes are not marked distinctively.

8 7A ~ 66B Rubber mats are not provided near the electric) pancl~s /Switch fx~~rd:~ to

~ «minimize the hazard of electrocution &electric cunnecrtiuns arC found I~x,~,c

I I and disorderly.


F~':t`'1;-ink registers not produced for ch::ck up on demand at the time o

f

.r~

,, ~

L~C'1.: i l~ rI

ln~re~tion book iii form No. 3~

:~ ~ .~~uit «~orker register {Fonr~ N

o 12}

'...

~!yI j

.~~.~ident and dangerous ~~ccurrence register.

..i~~ € Uti z

njme work milst:.i roll (

Form no 10)

'~o. operator found trained and instructed in the safe method of work befol•e

starting «~ork ~n aily p

ower press.

Leave Book in D

orm No.15 not issued to workers

cv

From

To

~

Chief

Inspector Factories,

Assistant Director, IS&H

~

Ha ana, Chandigarh

_______ __ _

~ (~ur~ac~n_III__

_ ___ _~

~

~.3 ~

1, ~

No.

~~~~

llatc ~

i ~

t~

Sub:

Inspection of M/s RDC Steel &

Allied (P) Ltd, Plot n

o -190, Sec -8, 1

MT

~,

Manesar, Gurgaon under Factories Act, 1

948 dated 7.3.2014.

~

Reference to your Inspection Report titc~-- dated- 14.3.?014 as the .'object

=

cited above

~v

Prosecution is allowed for the violation of~ the Serial No —4. 5. 7. 1

0 & 11

Compliance be affected immediately under intimation to this office.

r

- -

~1~~For Chief Inspector o

f Fact ric

Chandigarh, Haryana~~

~t

. ~ `.


Name: Santosh GuptaPosition: Aluminum Factory WorkerEmployer: Kiran UdhyogGender: MaleContact: N/AMigrated from: Rohtash BiharInterviewers/format: Craig, Keivan, and Tapan (face-to-face group interview)Summarized by: KeivanTime/location: Manesar (Dec. 30th)Recording File:

1. What do you do for work?Works in an aluminum factory.

2. Where do you work?An aluminum factory named KIRAN UDHYOG.

3. How many hours a day do you work?1 ypically 12 Hours a play, but sometimes does double shifts (i.e. 24 hours

straight). The maximum hours that one can work at the factory is 24 hours straight.

4. Can you describe your working conditions?Workers feel like they lack safely when operating machinery. There are 600-700

people that use four toilets. Company charges 15 Rupees for food, but they don't like thefood. They want to try to change the food.

5. Have you or someone you know ever been injured on the job?Yes. Worker was injured in 1997 a~ another company (flame unknown). He later

left and currently works at Kiran Udhyog. He recently saw someone named Tilak Singhat Kiran Udhyog get aluminum splashed all over his head during an accident. Tilak was amigrant worker from Kanpur, U.P. His injury was so serious that he can no longer workand was sent back to his native home. He received a lifetime pension plan from ESI. Theworker has seen two people injured in the past 5-6 years that were injured as severely asTilak.

6. Can you describe the injury?1 l~~t aluii~iiiuin caiiie up and splashed in his eye. Now his eye is deformed.

7. Did you seek medical treatment?

8. How/where did the injury occur?Injury occurred in a small company in 1997.



9. What effect did the injury have on your ability to provide for you and your family?llid not ask.

10. Did you employer do anything to help you with your injury (pay for medical treatment orpaid time of fl?

Yes. Employer paid for his medical treatment.


Did not ask.

12. Did your employer enroll you in the Employee State Insurance (ESI)?~Ias lead l:Sl sine 2~U8.


Did not use the insurance because his eye injury happened in 1997. Didstate that ESI will pay his badly injured friend who can't work anymore wages forthe rest of his life. Also knows of a situation where either his company or anothercompany took away 200 Rupees from everyone's paycheck to give to an injuredemployee. Everyone voluntarily agreed to allow the employer to do this.

ii. How would you rate your level of care on a scale of 1 to 10?

iii. If NO, does your employer provide you with any other type of private healthinsurance? OR Did you employer provide hospital care for the injury out of pocket(e.g. so that employer avoids employee going to a ESI hospital and beingreported)? How would you rate the medical care on a scale of 1 to 10?


Exposed to hot aluminum.


He said it is very much possible for health to be affected but never seen acase like this.


~;lov~s ul~ ba~1 ~~uality arc ~r~~viciccl.




laid not ask.

i. Describe the induced psychological effects and why you attribute them to yourwork environment.

i )i~_i ~iui :~~;I..


Did not ask.


Uid not ask.

16. Overall, what can you as workers do to demand this ideal work environment?Did not ask.

17. Have you or anyone you know had any success in receiving safer working conditionsfrom employers? If so, how did you go about instigating the change?

I~id not ask.

Take away: there should be some kind of protective gear for workers who have to handleriot alumi€ium.


Occupational Hazards Interviews ~ 1

Name: Vishweshwar RaiPosition: Plastic Factory WorkerEmployer: UnknownGender: MaleContact: N/AInterviewers/format: Craig, Keivan, and Tapan (face-to-face group interview)Summarized by: KeivanTime/location: Manesar (Dec. 30, 2014)Recording File:

1. What do you do for work?Works with a press machine that presses plastic into a part for an automobile. He

is required to remove the product from the machine.

2. Where do you work?At a factory that produces a plastic part for an automobile engine for Mahindra

automobiles. Worker did not know the name of his employer or employer's business.

3. How many hours a day do you work?12 hours. Eight regular hours and four hours overtime. He is paid his normal

hourly wage for the four overtime hours, not double as required by law. He sometimesdoes double shifts and even did a triple shift once, amounting to 36 hours straight.

4. Can you describe your working conditions?Only takes 1-2 days off a month. Works 12 hours a day and sometimes double

and triple shifts. Is exposed to fumes from the plastic but no mask is provided to theemployees. Most employees work at the factory for 2-3 months because they see howrisky it is to work there in terms of health. Worker stated that it is common for him to seeco-workers coming and going. He has seen machines cut off people's fingers and arms.He has been working there for 10 years and got a chance to be a permanent workerduring the year 2011. However, this only lasted during the year of 2011 because he wasdemoted for taking 10-12 days off. This is despite the fact that these days were approvedin advance as vacation time. As such, he is currently a contract worker and it seems likehe will remain as such.

The workers get medical treatment from ESI, but then they're left with a 50%chance of being hired again. Nonetheless, both contract workers and permanent workersget ESI. There are approximately 200 workers at the plant working on about 50machines. The worker sees about 2 injuries per week. There is verbal abuse to theworkers as a group whenever they fail to complete their targets. For example, themanagers will tell them all to hurry up. He has never seen any physical abuse. Countingof the targeted numbers take place every hour.

5. Have you or someone you know ever been injured on the job?Yes. Worker suffered a hand injury and claimed of seeing a number of hand

injuries during the tenure of his work. Currently he is on leave from work.

Worker Interview:Anonyinous ER ESIC Doctor Page 1


6. Can you describe the injury?Hand injury. The hand was wrapped up in brace. The worker's pointer finger was

not wrapped up and it looked swollen with pink marks as if worker had been burned.

7. Did you seek medical treatment?Yes, worker went to ESI hospital. However, the employer first sent him to a

private hospital in a company vehicle. Worker had reports from the private hospital withhim during the interview.

8. How/where did the injury occur?There is a machine that smashes the plastic and produces a final product. It is then

the worker's duty to pull out the final product from the machine. Worker did so, and themachine smashed his hand. There are no sensors on the machines that prevent this fromhappening. Instead, the workers just count 2-3 seconds to know the gap in time betweenthe smashing of the machine. It is during this time that the workers stick their hand in themachine to pull out the final products.

9. What effect did the injury have on your ability to provide for you and your family?This question was not asked due to time constraints.

10. Did you employer do anything to help you with your injury (pay for medical treatment orpaid time ofd?

Owner didn't even know about the injury. But ESI will pay him minimum wagewhile injured.


Having sensors on the machines.

12. Did your employer enroll you in the Employee State Insurance (ESI)?Yes.


Yes. Worker used the ESI. The way ESI works is that the employee has topay up front for the treatment if the employee won't be able to work for over amonth. Then, he will get reimbursed from the ESI once he gets clearance from thedoctor. He had to borrow money from a friend to pay for his medical treatment. Hewill be out of work for two months. If the injury only took one month, then thepayment for health coverage would be right then and there.

ii. How would you rate your level of care on a scale of 1 to 10?Question not asked. But based on the conversation, worker stated that he

was happy that he didn't have to worry about paying his debt back.



iii. If NO, does your employer provide you with any other type of private healthinsurance? OR Did your employer provide hospital care for the injury out ofpocket (e.g. so that employer avoids employee going to a ESI hospital and beingreported)? How would you rate the medical care on a scale of 1 to 10?

N/A- ~eueral cxpr~ssioil was that worker was cynical about employerpaying anything from his own pocket. He said employer don't even offer a freecup of tea from his own pocket.


He is exposed to fumes from the plastic production.


Worker believes that there is a risk of cancer from breathing in the fumesall the time, although he has never met anyone who has gotten cancer or any vitalrespiratory disease. Also believes that there is a risk for tuberculosis, although hehas never met anyone who has gotten it. He believes the loud noises may beaffecting his heazing, but he is 50 years old and his hearing may just be decliningdue to old age. After talking to a doctor at ESI, however, the worker stated thatthere's a remote possibility of developing vital respiratory disease because of thefumes.


He is provided gloves, but the gloves are made of wool and tear up afterabout four hours. Then, he asks for new gloves and will re-use the torn up glovesalong with the new gloves to provide more protection. The general expression isthat they don't believe the gloves provide much protection, but they try their bestto use them and avoid injuries. They are also not provided with any masks.


Question not asked.

Describe the induced psychological effects and why you attribute them to yourwork environment.

Question not asked.


Question not asked.


Occupational Hazards Interviews ~


Wishes there were safety sensors on the machines and that they were given moresafety equipment.

16.Overall, what can you as workers do to demand this ideal work environment?Question not asked directly, but he did indicate a preference for a union to

pressure his employer. He also stated that it is very difficult to form a union becausewhenever the topic emerges for discussion, the supporters of unions often get fired.However, the worker noted that if there were a union, he would join it.

17. Have you or anyone you know had any success in receiving safer working conditionsfrom employers? If so, how did you go about instigating the change?

Question not asked.

Take away: the ESI seems to be working properly. If the machines had sensors, it seemslike many injuries could be prevented. The workers wish to make a union to demand a saferwork environment.


~...Insured Pei-son : vISt=L~``.'f=_i iv~i'

lnsurajlce \c, :692.' 18:4(i~

14;c:d~~~1 A ce _tance Card (Click Here to View N{edica~ p.~ D

p an ei~n d

~~S11'aii011 : l 1

; ~•~-?0? ? {~~alid fur 3

morth5)

a

- ~~:.-

Ernployee Wams:

~~a:,:~ of ~a.her/H~sband:

IK~rit31 Siotu~:

Present ~d~lress:

Disp~nsar~ !.t€o:

E

r

~+

YOUR REG3STF.Ai IAN DETAILS

VISHES!~dAR rZAI' Type of Disability:

YFCAFc RAY

Da:e o; Binh:

~m'd

Gender.

b7_t.:KHC.PO:th4lSESA~.Gliri ~C~h

N~,;:st:G::-c2.~.6iarya;a ?e~ mane^.n~dres_:

iJ'2f3es2:•. ice? ;c ~S C~s~.;

:nJ:foy:. s ~o..e Mme.:

15Gl30~4~4EOi0~OC1Sus Unii's Cede No.:

69~50145<<6001100~Date osAp~oin~~~u

06!042012

tVame of ~m~ioyer:

OM ENTER?RISES

256 2iv~ F

LOOR KRISHNA?/.LACE,SOH~v4

Address cf Employer:

CHOwK,GUP.AGAOn

N4RYAf~i~ Dist:GurgaonN.aryana

Famiiv Details

t:a:ne

Relationship with tho Employee

Die of Bir:;

~mploy~Ys Ccde s: o.:

Sub Units erode No.:

Previous Insurence No.:

Name of E

mployer:

Address of E

mployer:

1'lfhether Residing v~ith IP

w~_

05lOL; i5=-~

F.+trJ~4 :~~:".~iS'Z::.oi ~

8:

Stats

FiJP1E

done

I~br~ ~ ..

_ {y~

titre

V•

r ~~'!~~ ...

. _ ... 1.

u --

'~tl~0!~l~8~1 '3'i!m~tn~~

Place of Residence

district j

_~

Employee ~~ame:

i~~a:~:~ of ;-a~;1e

r 1 N~sband:

Narita! Siatu^::

Present ~..dciress:

E:nt:loyA~•J ~i0~~' IVl~..

Sub L1nii's ~

~~dc No.:

Dafe of:,pacin:m~r.~:

Nsme ~f ~m~ioyer:

.4ddress of Employer:

Famiiv Details

ha~ne

Relationship with the Employee

l>>suz•~d Person : ~'~ JI~1LJ

1̀ •~l~1\ iv1Y

lnsuraiic~ \c, :6922141464

Date oi' 1Z_,istration : 1 i/04!?0? ?

(valid fur 3 ;nonths}

IYled9cal Acceptance Cnrdj

YQUR RECiSTF:AilON D

ETAIL

VISHES!~dAR RAl'Type of Disability:

Y.FCAR RAY

Date of Binh:

MarriedGender:

49LI_:!~HC.PO:t~14NESAR.GUnGAGNPe~~ane^~/1~dres_..

t~nesar. N? ;~S;c p;s~ ;

..'~

9500044;34BOt0~OC1

6915C145~16001100i

06/04/2012

OM ENTER?RISES

256 2tJD F

LOOR KRISHNA?/'.tACE,SOHNA

CHOWK,GUP.AGAO~

N4RYAAL4, Dist:GurgaonF'zryana

- Da:z of Bir:~

~mpiayers Ccde Wo.:

Sub Units erode Pao.:

Previous insurence No.:

Name of E

mployer:

Address of Employer:

~'Vhe!her Residing witi~ IP

L

'VA

V€

Vs .̂. _

>+

Nors

05/04/i9"o4

tvt

V/

5tata

tune

None ~

~bn

~

Nine ¢ '

ti ...s~

2~;:~,

tior.= ~i~ ̀-.'.'~.'.. .

~l~e~s

Place of Residence

District

ALCHEMISTHOSPITAL

Trust your I~~al~h with us

' 11i.~~h~uc~r~1 {I~~mrItrlri ir~l 1~~:

~~Il ;\~~;~ii~~t ~tr~li~ul A~Ivir~)~.rli~u~;r un kr~~urvtX11 l' l'n.r, Nip:1'aticnl'~ N€€m~: —'--~' 1 ti 111~:~~~',~ Itl,l n.t Nun€r~.. _ _ ~Middir N~me~\Er' 11ii~h I)»tr ~U Ycwr

~)C~1;IflIlICl11 --- :~)1'I~IU~I;I~l~IC3

1'rii~ri~,;~l c'uuvuhimt._.__._ I)r. Nrrruj.Sharn~n\~~:ir.~hrli,t : 1)r. S. K. l'rchan

CtNAI.I)IA(:NOSIS:-

Ii~Gury.

RAY_ l.nst Namc

Sex: MAIc

Urtho

DUPLICATE

(for D~uharfle Summary o~N)

DISCHARGESUMMARY

34560

Mk No

14/15015

IP NoAdmission Date :14/11/2014

Procedure Date :19/11/2014

Dischar e Date :23/11/2014

('rush Injury hiuui with f'c~rearm woundln,ju~~~ to l I~i~,~r /lrtrry, Ulnur nerve, flexor carpi ulnaris, compartment syndrome.I~rnrlurr ~,t'clist~il ra~tiu. illlll ~nA Illt',IilC~fpAI.

Ilislory uf~crush injury right forearm at 1 pm on 14/1 1/2014 while working in

Ol'H;ItA'1'IVF PROCFnURE / INTERVENTION:-

• Wc~un~1 ex}~lornticm, repair of ulnar artery, ulnar nerve, flexor carpi ulnaris, TENSnailing of radius and K wiring of 2nd metacarpal.• Iixplorntiott of ~vaund closure ~€nd skin grafting done under GA on 19/11/2014

JIISTO1tY OF PRF,SENT 1LLNF,SS:-

Mr. Vishes~vnr Ray, n 50-year-old male, referred from ESI Hospital, Manesar withhistory of right ti~ren~m at 1 pm on 14/1 U2014while working in factory when patient right hadci~mc in nuuhinc followed by bleeding from right forearm.

PAST HISTORY:-

Nothing significant

Mr. Vishcswar Ruy 1


~~LE~~pNT CLIh'ICAI. CINUINGS Oil AD~115S10N:-

pulse 9K /min~P 130 / 90 mmHbSp~~ 96 °~o on room air

Chest E3il~terally clear~̀ ,S S 1, S2 norn~alP;,~~ Soft and non-tenderSys Conscious, oriented~E Limbs —Right hand bandage (+)

COURSE DURING HOSPITAL STAY:-

Patient vas admitted with above-mentioned complaints.. Patient was explained the nature of injury.

Exploration of ~~'ound, repair of ulnar artery, ulnar nerve, flexor carpi ulnaris, TENS nailing of

radius and K wiring of 2"d metacarpal was done on 14/11/2014. Secondary wound closure and skin

grafting was done under GA on 19/ I 1 /2014. Post-operative period was uneventful. Patient was

stabilized and shifted to ward. Patient remained comfortable postoperatively. There was no distalneurovascular deficit and patient is being discharged in haemodynamically stable condition.

INVESTIGATION CHART:-

(REPORTS ATTACHED)

RADIOLOGY FINDINGS (detailed report attached)

Chest x-ray PA View (14/11/2014) —Haziness is seen in left CP angle area ?due to overlying soft tissue.

X-Ray right forearm with hand - (15111/2014) —Fracture shaft of right radius and 2nd metacarpal with internal fixation implant are seen.

PATIENT'S CONDITION AT DISCHARGE

Haemodynamically stable


. ....~.~ :.f;~;;;:; rl~.a ~;(f f•1~Ttr

', ,~,c,~.~ ~7 if~~c`.u4~,Tior~ E2~ E.S.I. Cp~E~v~l'~TIG~ J

•1,•• 'ff :fir{~f~BrrK; U( Ein(3!~y~r 7_r ~~i-.rd~ ('l;i~—

OM ~NTEkPkISES256, IInd Floor, Yrishna palace

Sphrt~;C,1~i~c; urgaon

,a-~, ~+IGS~ Ra€,~c Po~yMERS;rrrir ,r~ ,i,.~~

i r.T, MANESNfI C4U~

.~ ~~~,,,~•, of orem~se: pLyMENM,S• Rn,+EE Pi 1.I:E;lQ ,d'fiflyft~

i-~:rn

(Lbw MoV1,DWC-~r~~.r,;..~,,,:nt

'/.csu To 15.30 N~.•r ;~~~;

,. ,,.

,.~, ,,.a

~~i ~~•i~ i~~ir.,n~:~:~t,t-rat ~aEF~uriy-------~~1•ii!~'~S) ~" J lj~~€OI f 1J•s --_.., ._ _ l3rnnch C)Ihc~

ISf~IIS , ÌX --ù RG AON

t18mp r, A.~d,eSS Ot u~slUc4Der~ryn

V~~HES W AR Rey

~) ̀ /POw sl11~~"~~'lrR

~,s~rT- v~~s~raLi .

r7~~~~Oate and hour of Acu~ler.t

14-11-Znl.~ o€~ I.~•SO

'~Zt' i~ ':ifs F3%1~1 71? %fiR -. (:?f'r~T°! "sT7f:~i ~1 tlf~~;

~~,+i ~~ .,rn~ Fx•~e~~; of iri~~ry (e.g rotal loss of finger, fracture of

R ~jU

V

•: r ::-~ ~r Tr'yrf a'T ~ ?r ~'-rig?, f~; ~i :~fii~NO•

`(17~; :TTY TT ~iA7 7 ~: •:l T^~f'?,° rt•r i•:ridpnt is net fat< I state whether theq~, e~} o~rson t,as returned to work?

-, g~,e da+e 8 hour c! return to work

:~~,~~;~-~~~~~ M~aDate of Death .n case the insured person died

~ rrrr~r~f*~Ff~(~Tu?t~.~t~~ ~.i Yes ~t No

terb'lt,ather wages in full or part are payable to himfor the day o7 accident

Fu c.

F~1 71T{T~~~iT~i T~?~f F F?~ 3f ~,fi QTtT(s) s ~~ art ~t ~~ err ~ f~ ~ f~; y ES

Whether the injured person was on the dayaccident an employe9 as defined in Sec 2 (9)of the Act and v~hether Contnbu€ion was payableby hemmer for the da/ on v~hich the accidentoccured.

'ni l is In~iir~lnrr~ Nq

6`~~~~8~u6uf~~l~f snx

MACE

n~o ~~~s~ n~rtnd~r)0 5-o4-1q!

~~ Occupation

OBE RA~oR

f~ ?ray ~ ~r~ ~~r rr~€Hour at which v~nru w:,~ ~~n

•• i

T7T? ~hfT TTi +• (~T~T~ ; ~If~,i fT~J, T1? ~T ~T~ST "Siff:);.ocat~on of injury (right/lest hand, leg or ~,ye otc.

1 ~ 1~" ~-IQ~ W r 1 bt

~rt~t~~ 7af~t ~ a1r~~r~t~a't~r f~c~tr ~{r•.ri

Dispen~?ry/!~~IP of injured person MANESR R

=;err err rr~rr~ fir .~rrra ~f~r ~•.~ ~-~rr fir ~ errii-~~rr ~r 7~r ~ i SIC HosQl?A~;r, or dispensary from where injured Rarson M~~J~^~F}{~received or receiving treatement. 1MT~

T?2~T ~T F{f'~iR, ~T?Tc3rief description of the accident

X~ Q waS c~cY ~"v~$- k~,l~ 1~-low M0 ~ i

r~`c• wh~rZ'~ wQs s~''`p~' }b'o ~m~

~~+~°4u,. Mac. Mou.~, St~,d~~ n~~,taq ~i9'~'

Mb~ CAcbed~ C av,siv~.t,.~n ~li~-

Ka,~cl

i rrtfif7f F' ~ff~T :iTJ 'J~ in'T'f~:- '!f ~7?~T d11Vf~i '~i ~7 ~i ~? ?f~ 'c.'~ '~ %1T ~d~Fi

rl~ma and address of witnesses f777°f ~ <T.. T~iP~ I~ T~ F~F,?f '~fT ~T ~ 3TfF '~c'• ~~f Tc1P? I-n ~7i

. _ "1-= iT F ~iTl'7 :?ffiT?%~'~(~'i ~ glZ?iT ~l"c'.T EU?~T ~ ~, iì~

j ~ So~€1u S€.wYmo , v~o- M t~ , D1S - 4 f~rr~rF ~: ~nvrz !r ~r~rr ~ var~ra ~ ~, , f~m~~ ~r~€ rrat a~;Note:•li~ case the accident happened while meeting emergency.

' -7i~Qhc~r4 ~ V-PO-~f~~S~ D~s~ r•4~R~A0~ F,.,~ ri 5q~re€i q,~~e~c~~ ~~- ~J,h~el t~

~ I S~rll~,e~~~idba~~l ~~f~~r€~IF~~DIPof Iuc nmidn~ior'c t•~r!a nr ncinocc in nr AFw it fha nrcmicca which

s/

~: 1 r : ..

:,. Via•, ,,.,€~,~~ ,...`.. ,..b!acnmery (~) Grve n~mn ~•~ r.art~rn~~ .,t ~~ . . , - , . - . ~r ,. ,~.•~+r.

{~-,

l7j

S~rp %7%~'~%I •'.:T' 71'i' ":`~1 Tf%J ~T;;T~ :`::-' ~f s;.?;,' ;r, .; ~rS';1!nwRCt'~^€itri.~;fn~lir~~ftyrnE•~,r.t~rv.n ;.~:i.~:•~~~,.! ~

r~~~~~...__._.._.~j _...___...J

~ T II •',^. r'T fir,! ;~ ~'. ~1 f : :r3~ ~~i, •F f :7( if~7 •i•7~ $ ~ ~ ~- t

(b) S':1!0 EfxilCt~y v.'n.)' 1!:y Ir ~jv•f ,l ~ <.~lir.t~ wtt , ~1 ;M' 9t;'S:,. • ~'

..r..r-----

(TT 1~~~

---

`F.iT ~7~ ?I~'F~ :%f~%1i %F fif'1 ~~T~~I.T~ ~~.r.~'~,( .i ,S~% .i: T;" ~:' •

YJBs the m~iuE•d pCrson at tnaf t~m~ of ~ccid~:r,~ ar~,r~ ,r. o;r•T: a•;`•r:`'~

,n

r.,• •~~t fiY r~:

✓

the prov~s~ons o(~ny lark applica a to im or ............ .... .. . ,

~~,~ 'sT~{ f~F .;TTi %aT ?i ii 'sue rf ~7f ~T?I ~T,T ' :T,'.i*

.................... ..

any orCe~s given by :r nn behalf of nos employer....... ,... .....

~_. N ~ ~;, •~

f ~l I~7f~=~ ~ sT~'' SiT ~ T~'~T ''$~7 *T~ .........rout mst~uction from his employer.. •• ~ ~-~ ~~~"'

acting rn~ ........................

> :^~Tr'

t i (.r 1 ~! i '~ %~j :~t aT cT ? ~'i T T~ •~. i . ~ T ~~ 3 i

•. =r ~"

~;~ K ~I n`.fT Tf~fi 4'i 1 ~ w.~ .r:r~:.~: J' i:'F r ~rr~-='`•~'' r~r,-~

~~ i 1 2 0~ (3) is YES, Star VIhB!`?• :hn ~%' '~~8.~ . ~inF• M1~ ;~•'

(dl Incase rep,y to C ( )~ ( )

employer's Made or business.

~— z"-~r~~'~*f~'~;.?L~si"~"' TTY,

?j' x ~~%~~jnT~{ ~ ~l

~'~'-~ r" ~~ Yr .rZr~;Jr, ~i~~$ /b..ri.Fi r~ 1'1~J'~i

in case the acade~t happened while

TRAVELLING in th•: E~"FE~Y- 3 ' r ~ f ~'

travelling.

1. irf~~~~~~T~f iT~~n~Ti

? .s/'

as a passenger to ar fram his place of v~ork

~~

~ T~~~ ~ :1TT'+~'~.-~i TAT I~T'i~ :nT~'f Ff ~ ~ Y_~ ~

With the ex~~ress or implied permission of his emp~c~er ~ 3

STi~ C~T ~T ~ 1„ " '.4 ~ s~

~. ~1 ~~ 7̀ ~~ X27 ~~r~ ~ :~~~i? ~~ 3 t 0 ~~ Q~ ~G~r G~C~ Y ~Y~: ~ ~~

'' ~t ~..~

the transport was being operated by oron behalf

of he err.p• `r

by whom it is p~ov~ded m pursuarre of arrangeme~• ~ r~ ~%=

"''h t'~''`' e~G'~; :..

~- ~' ~ ~''~ r ~ r jam'

4 ~7f ~ ~ c tt2.~y.. • a

The vehicle was being/not being operated in the

ordi~ay course of Fu.~•~

~'fitiiQf~ ~T"F~f ~ fF 3~f ~15T1*~i ~

lie~'the abf~,o ~2'`JCU'2.'S 2: F G%'~' ~ ~'' =.; -~~'' ~'

certify that to the best of my knowledge and be

E tP n s e s

~?~? ~' ~fi ~T~Date of d?spatch of report

• 1~-ll~Z-OlU - ~~r; ~ nel ~~~; ~ lei

~7T ~i TO

Fot 4m n ~~

~+.J~1 ..'~~t}~

„_. .~2~6, Itnd ~T~or Krish:S~ ~-'~=~~ ~._~. ..,.~

~~~~Oary No. 8~ Oate Scanned by Ca~i~~~anner

Ow~rvi~;w ~,f jt~,l~; and I'~~wc~r

ref Ins cn ;c:t~~rr~ (lisi~;k,~r~~~i11~1 ~t~'s~c ~~~~~~11f

,};t; ~~:ntr:~l ;;~~~: ~;rnm~:nt ~~nd thy;

1~tini~tr; ~~f I.•~f> >ur ~

:~':.,.,,''„

< <.., ind l~:t;i5l~ti~~n v~hil~; thy: 1 ab~

~ur 1)~;1~:~rtm~;nt~ ~~1~1r: ;;;~~

~~:;'.-;;~;,

f~s~~i~~ti;il ~, ,!i ,; ;

;,fi~i ~e;~;~~n I ni~~r~'I'~;rriu~ri~:5 arF

, r~hp~,n5ih1~; S~,r im{~l~:m~;

ntir~,~ -jl~.~~ t: s;°~;,~;;:,~''~~~'

}~';,~:v~ri~:~ ~'~~;t thr~~u~;h their fact~

~ry in5p~.ctf,rsiui~. ~ ~ / ~

O 4I f

(M;'~

f,~~::inv;hil~:, thy; llirect~uats: ~;~;ner

al, I~act~~ryAdvic~: 5~;~~vic~:~

%j13.'~ 1~;~f%,: ~.,~~ ~, ,

~!)~;1~~'~~I.1) - an s~~;ency ~~f the ce

ntral ~;~,vernm~;nt -, r v

~r~ t~ ~ . ~:;,..~;,.

n,~~i~~n:~l h~:;ilth anal haf~ty pulic

ie5 f~~r f:~cu~ri~;~ ;end d~xkr~

%jll'~ Ji~~.~~f;~ ti'~':':; ':.:=; ;"•`~;

1';~~:V~i•y ins{~~:c:tr,rater~ on imp

lementati~~n ~~f thy; Facu~ri~

:~ ~~.~;f.

'1'h~~'~9ir~i~try ~,i' l,;ih~~ur rind

1:mployment ih r<;sponsibJ~: lur

i.~~rrr~ul~t.~ ;>> ~=•':

:idrr~ini~tr:i~iri;; l:i~ti•s and rc:~

;ulatiuns rclatin~ tai l~b~~ur e

nd ~;tnr~J.v'.'r;~t;:;'.

1)~~/~u€•tment(~) responsible jvr

Lubaur Inhpection:~~,t ~ c

~:ntt'~1 ~~:'.~~;, ;~; : = ~=: ~=,

• th~~ 1)irect~~rs~te ~~cneral, Factor

y Advice Service: and I.ab~~u

r ln~:t~t~1*.~:~: ~ ~:=::~. -r-jl

c:ir•ri~~5 out inspections related to

~~ecupatiunal ~;afet5• and h~~al

t~~ z~,~: ~ ~:..'-.~ ~~~ ='

cr:r~ti•;~1 level the Chief Lah~~ur

Commissioner (CI.C) als~~ l~n~~r,

n ~.~: t::.~: ~:N:::'

1»~lu5trisil J~.c;l<ition Machinery (C

IRi~1) is responsible for en~orc

in~ J.:if~:: ~:~~ -.~~i~~:~..::-

r~~l.~t,~;d to working conditions. Both

the DGFA.SLI and the C1~~; ~rj.

%:'~ ~ ~=~ ~}..:':=°

~,f ~hc !~iini5try ~~f Labour& F,mploy

ment.

• ViNil~r «itd junctivns:.1~1o5t inspections

are conducted after r:ct:i: r..Y :~

~,-::;.:~ n~ ~.~•

in c:~~;e5 where it is deemed necessary

to ensure the safetti~ ~~f v.orYj:r•-

. ~:.'1: '~~~~~~:

:end t~~ reduce the number of routine i

nspection, undertakings em~l~n-i:

~ .~-•~ ~~rr.

~U workers are required tosubmit asel

f-certificate certified b~• a ch.: ~..

,~~

:accountant.

• .5:~netic~n and administrative proce

sses:Inspectors" Sanctioning;~frr

=.T= ~~r

lirniu~d u~ filing f~rosecution complaints

in the courts of lain. Sanctic::~: 1' ~:

~~.1r ~ir~^:~

o!'l:~h~~ur laws; provide for fines ancUor

imprisonment.Under the Eu~1~.:.^.~

-~' r,~h~r

c~~n5truction Workers (RECS) Central

Rules, 1998 an inspector i~ ~ti ;.~.~

•w~^~ t~~

i~5ue warnin~~ to employers regarding t

he safety, health or u-~l~a:~ c~~= ~~..°~~_...,

.

worker,. No other labour law provides

for issuance of «-arning bz• t~~

in~pector.Although the lacy does not s

pecifically grant discretion to T~~ ~~=~

~;.a~~ to

~~ive w~rnin~5 and advice instead of lau

nching prosecution e~:cept t}~.~T ..~: -

i.= z

p~•:ictice f~~llowed to issue warnings to t

hose offenders u•ho are first-iii:#» ~,^_

~ c~ho

r~;c:tify I:he irre~ularitie~ within a given

timeframe.Inspectors can a?=.~ =.._~~

~

~~i~~if~ifiiliorc order when a in construct

ion sites, buildings, factories ~: -^^-~_ cy~rl~

it

~~~;rt'~~rmed in such conditions that are

a danger to life safest- of t~~ ~~:~': ~. c~~

t~uil~lin~; workerh or to the public, unt

il measures ha~•e been taken t.~ r_.- ~ :! ~ tI~

G

c;iu~~: oFthe danger to the inspector'

s satisfaction.The Direct.~r Gen~:~„ f: I

~~~~on

in the Central Sphere is authorise

d to exercise the poK-ers of an in-~,~:r~ ~ c~

-cu ~;

:1 (~l1s~Ki -Judicial authority, and is emp

oc;~ered to impose fines on t~~ ~1~-LV~

~~rr~ J~1 oyer~.

• 11,(1 Conventions ratified: India

ratified Convention :~To. 81 in 19 9 ~? ~~_

nQz

r;~~ir~;cl C~~nvention No. 129.

littp://www.ilo.org/labudmin/inf

o/t'VC~IiS_156047/lang—en/indes.htm

)


How India's cars have been built on anassembly line of broken fingers

any workers at automobile factories risk losing their fingers. (Reuters/Babu)

5~~~

"I'm lucky," said Lokesh Kumar as he held up his left hand for examination. "I pulled out in

time." Half a centimetre of his thumb had been shaved off by a machine.

Kumar works in Manesar, India's leading automobile hub, about go kilometers from Delhi,WRITTEN BY

in Haryana's Gurgaon district. Around 80,000 workers work here at more than 600

Supriya Sharma, Scroll.in companies, with a majority producing components for cars and bikes.

Last week over morning tea, as night-shift workers emerged bleary-eyed, and day-shiftDecember 2, 2014

workers trooped in with their tiffin-boxes, the young man in his twenties told me stories of

the scores of accidents he had seen in the years since he arrived from his village in Bihar.

uIn every factory, you would find at least ten boys with broken ~ngers,~ he said. "About half

of the boys who've come from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to work in Haryana have lost their

fingers."

This sounded hyperbolic until I visited the hospital for workers run by the central

governments Employee's State Insurance Corporation. Five patients sat in the orthopaedic

department waiting for a doctor's consultation, Four of them were cases of "crush injuries".

A worker's hand soon after the

bandage was removed.

(Scroll/Supriya Sharma)

A small press in an auto parts factory

in Gurgaon. (Scroll/Supriya Sharma)

"We see about 20 cases of crush injuries everyday," said Dr Pankaj Bansal, the orthopaedic

surgeon at the hospital. "In most cases, the fingers are auto-amputated, which means they

have been lost even before the worker has come to us. In some cases, the entire hand is

lost."

Not just the orthopaedic department, even the emergency ward in the hospital sees a steady

stream of crush injuries, which are also called cut injuries. The records examined by Scroll

showed 20 cases in the ten days between November i9-z8.

In the most immediate sense, the injuries are caused by a tall machine called the power

press, which cuts, shapes or moulds metal by ramming it with a heavy piston-like arm. The

worker operating the machine places the metal piece on the work table, presses a pedal or

lever that brings down the arm. Once the arm pulls back, he removes the reshaped piece

from the table, before repeating the process.

When the arm comes down before the worker's hand is out of the way, it leads to

amputations.

Shop floor supervisors and company managers blame such accidents on the lack of alertness

on part of the workers. But accounts of injured workers reveal that the accidents are taking

place in such large numbers because companies are saving costs at the expense of workers

safety.

Vasudev, one of the injured workers

in the ESIC Hospital, Manesar.

(Scroll/Supriya Sharma)

Nov. i8, ii p.m. Vasudev had already clocked in i5 hours of work on the shop floor, shaping

metal pieces that he was told would be fitted into the seat frames of Maruti cars. Starting ~

a.m., perched on a stool, the 22 year old had diligently worked his arms and legs at the

power press machine in a rhythmic cycle—right hand to place the piece on the table, left leg

to press the pedal, left hand to remove the piece. With a hourly production target at 240

pieces, he had to complete four work cycles in a minute, or one in i5 seconds.

"I thought iYs ii p.m., let me hurry up, finish the work and get some rest," Vasudev said. "I

might have pressed the pedal too fast. Or the machine slipped..." Before he could remove

the piece and his hand out from harm's way, the machine's arm came crashing down,

crushing the top half of his right thumb.

But why was he working until so late? "The supervisor said a work order has to be

completed. On such days, you can't slip out even if you want to..."

Vasudev works at Sharda Motor Industries Limited. On its website, the company claims to

be a leading supplier of front suspensions, seat frames and other components for Hyundai,

Mahindra and Tata Motors. An email to the company's management seeking a response on

the accident went unanswered.

Not only are they hard-pressed to meet targets, workers say they are often not trained for

the job. "Many of the workers who come to us are new to the industry and have not been

trained to operate the machines," said Dr Bansal.

Arvind Kumar is all of ig. He lost his left thumb this month while operating a power press

at a company called Antech Engineers Private Limited, which makes clutches and stands for

scooters and motorcycles.

According to him, the accident took place because of machine failure. "Something went

wrong with this part, here," he said, sketching the machine on my notebook. "It failed to

stop the rotating wheel, and so the press came down even though I had not pressed the

pedal."

Machine failure usually occurs due to lack of maintenance and overuse. The Occupational

Safety and Health Administration of the United States identifies problems with the

electrical circuit of the machine's clutch and brake control as a possible reason for lack of

"control reliabiliTy".

Scroll made attempts to call the management at Antech Engineers but could not get

through.

Rajkumar lost his middle and ring

finger two years ago. (Scroll/Supriya

Sharma)

Arvind Kumar joined the company at the start of November but was not given any training

before he was made to operate the machine. "They said I didn't need it because I had

worked on the power press of another company for six months," he said. "But the machine

in the previous company was operated with a handle while the machine at Antech had a

pedal."

Given its magnitude, it is hard to believe that the epidemic of broken fingers could be

stemmed easily, just if companies cared enough to install safety guards.

'Itvo years ago, 3o-year-old Rajkumar lost his middle and ring finger to a power press

accident in RDC Steel and Allied Services Limited, a company that supplies auto-parts to

Omax Auto Limited, which assembles them into larger parts for Maruri, Honda and other

automobile companies. According to Rajkumar, at least another 20 workers lost their

fingers and hands on the company's shop floor in the last two years.

_ ̀ ___—_--- I .~~

w~

o ~#' 1~

At RDC's factory, the head of operations, Dinesh, admitted that io-i2 accidents have taken

place, but added that they have stopped since the company installed safety guards and new

machines six months ago.

Taking me around the shop floor, he showed me the newly installed pneumatic presses,

which have inbuilt sensors that automatically stop the rotation of the machine's arm if they

detect any human presence in the working area. Although safer, the pneumatic presses are

more expensive—each of the pneumatic machines cost the company Rs2o lakh ($32,

292) while the mechanical presses came for just Rs8lakh ($i2,9i~). "Eighty per cent of the

presses in India are mechanical," said Dinesh. The company has i2 pneumatic presses and

2i mechanical ones.

But even the mechanical presses could be made safer, he said, showing how the foot pedal

in the machines had been replaced with a double hand safety mechanism. Only when the

worker engaged both his hands in pressing buttons does the machine arm come down. The

cost of installing the two buttons: just Rs28,000 ($450).

M even cheaper safety mechanism, Dinesh explained, was getting workers to use magnetic

clamps, or rods with magnets installed at one end which could lift the metal pieces without

putting the worker's hands at risk. The cost of the clamps: just Rs25 ($0.40).

With such inexpensive safety devices available, why weren't more companies using them, I

asked Dinesh. "Because they slow down production," he said.

MOST POPULAR

A Chinese state-owned company is

linked to Bangladesh's latest

factory collapse

SPONSOR CONTENT BY GE

Here's a look inside GE's brand new

manufacturing facility in Pune

Companies might be reluctant to install safety guards but Schedule VI of the Factories Act

in India makes it legally binding for them to do so. "Our laws aze good," said Suresh

Shrivastava, a former government employee who runs a firm called Safety Consultancy

Services, "but we are bad at enforcing them." Only flue officers in Haryana's labour

department are empowered to carry out factory inspections in Manesar. One of them told

me he manages to do just ten inspections in a month. Safety audits for the machines are

often done by people appointed at the discretion of the labour department. "They often

don't have certification or even basic competence," said Shrivastava.

A better way of eliminating amputations, he claimed, would be to make it mandatory for

companies that make power presses to install safety guards in them. "They aren't doing that

at the moment," he said. "It is like making bicycles without brakes."

Shop floors could also be made safer if there was consumer pressure on the large

automobile companies to compel their vendors to shape up. "Safety standards in Indian

industry have improved in the last few years not because we care for our workers,"

Shrivastava said, "but because our international buyers have put pressure on us."

A spokesperson of Maruti Suzuki declined to comment on the injuries that have taken place

in the factories of companies that are part of its supply chain. "We cannot comment as

suppliers do not report injuries to us," she said, adding that the company believed it was "a

serious concern."

"We organise safety audits for our primary vendors," she said. "We are increasing the ambit

of the safety trainings to include tier 2 and tier 3 vendors who are vendors to our primary

suppliers...We are working towards it."

This post first appeared on Scroll.in

~~~- http://gz.com/30~


Relevant Labor

De artment Formsp1. Form 12

2. Form 18

3. Inspection Checklist

A~12 ~68~ ~~~~ ~~FORM 12 (REGULATION 68) E.S.I. CORPORATION ACCIDENT REPORT

~ ~T ~i i Name of Employer ~ i~if i Code No. ~Ii~f ~t~ i Branch Office

~f ~ ~T ~r~ ~r air eta a u~t ~qi~ Insurance No.Nature of Industry/ Name &Address of insuredbusiness person

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~rfrT Sex

l~I

Address of premiseswhere accident

~ ~~T ~ ~~Age (Last birthday)

happened

~T~ Occupationf~v~r~

Deparment

~~Shift Hour

~~

Exact place ofaccident

f ~, c~.7 ~TDate and hour of Accident

f~iN N~ITiT~ 4~ ~TT ~T~ifHour at which work was sarted

~i A~TiTi ~i 3~ c~ eT~ tom+ ~3Zf~t°ff~ 3T~C ~i II1cT~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

T~ ~T c~'~ ~E1ZIT, / ~T~f ~T, YC ~f 3if~ 3i1~~Location of injury (righUleft hand, leg or eye etc.

Nature and extent of injury (e.g total loss of finger, fracture ofleg. scald etc.

c~l ~ <lTi 3~gETf~/~f ~T ~i~ ~~

Dispensary/IMP of injured person~. Tl~i ~F ~ c~ ~i f$L, ~i ~7T ETfti~tti~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~rurail~~rf~e~r~r~aarr~~ur~r~~r~ra~iif the accident is not fatal state whether theinjured person has returned to work?If so, give date & hour of return to work

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dr. or dispensary from where injured personreceived or receivin treatement.

~T 8~f ~Ytfr~ ~~ ~ ~q-~ x~ x~ ~,} ~~ Brief description of the accident

Date of Death in case the insured person died

~Tf~~~ r1~,3~~1~(~ Yes ~No

~1T 3~if ~F(Whether wages in full or part are payable to himfor the day of accident

off ~i ~L~f ~i ~ 31~I~fifR ~i QRf2 (9~ ~, 31~' ~fT ~ ITT 3ti ~ ~i c~313TdTd ~f PIf ~ffi ~ fWhether the injured person was on the dayaccident an employee as defined in Sec 2 (9)of the Act and whether contribution was payableby him/her for the day on which the accidentoccured.

i~R: vf~ ~dz~r ~nvra ~ ~r ~t ~ Stu ~ ~ a1 aa~r

~ '~ ~ ̀~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ `~ ~ ~f ~i ~Rf El~~iftt~ ~ ~ 4~fR ~ ~{f ~f~ '~, 31V~

~~ ~ aI1VlZ ~7f 3~dR ~i A~fd ~ c~T d ~7, T rf~f YlfNote:-In case the accident happened while meeting emergency.indicate in the description above its natue and also whether theinjured person at time of accident was employed for the purposeof his employer's trade or business in or about the premises which

~r1 ~ ~ 3~ ~}Name and address of witnesses

1.

2

the accident took place.

(~) err ~(a) CAUSE OF ACCIDENT

~~ (1) zf$~ 3~ ~i APT cif ~ ~ T ~ ~ 3i~t~Machinery (1) Give name of machine and part causing the accident, and:

~`Ti~ z~{ c ~}i c~Tf ~ 3Zi ~T $T~cf ~Tfc* 1~ ~T ~ ~?(a) Statewhetheritwasmovedbymechanicalpoweratthattime.?

(~~ Z~ ~i-~i c~Tl~ ~'i ~,i t~tii ~cf 3fi ~f~f cif ~i ZfiT PIf(b) StateexactlywhattheinjuredpersonwasdoingatthattimeT

(7T) ~If ~ti ~ ~~i ~' ~t ~ci~i ~i 3~~ ~ $f, ~' ~i ~1 SIT?(c) Wastheinjuredpersonatthattimeofaccidentactingincontraventionof?

(1~ 3~i r-iT~~~~i3 C9~T~-T~ifthe provisions of any law applicable to him or ................................................................

(2~ 3~ ~Ttf ~T 3~i 3i~f ~ ~ff Rif Tany orders given by or on behalf of his employer ............................................................

(3) ~Fi cam'' 3T~.2T1 ~i ~f ~ ~facting without instruction from his employer ..................................................................

~~~if caused by

Yes No

~f Yes ~ No

(~r) uf~ (~r) (i) (s)ur (3)~r~r~~~~7v~~i~~r~f~vY~~~rr~rt~z~u~ull~r~#3i1r a~ ~ ~ fir err ~rt i

(d) In case reply to C (1), (2) or (3) is YES, state whether the act was done for the purpose of and in connection withemployer's trade or business.

~i~~~~~ur~r~~r~~,~1v~fi~~ri~t~u~~~zr~r~ iIn case the accident happened while TRAVELLING in the employer's transport, state whether the injured persontravelling.

1. 3i9~ ~i i $'i ~ ~i cif ~ ~ ~i ~Y ~ ~T Yes ~ f

as a passenger to or from his place of work

2. 3i9~ ~RT~T~fi ~, 3~af~Fii iTl ~~Tii 3~f'fTWith the express or implied permission of his employer

s. err ~ f~~ ur ~ ~h ~ err f~fi 3r~r ~r ~rcr err ~r ~r ~r f~~r~r1~rY~~~rerf~fia~~~rti~ut~ ithetransportwasbeingoperatedbyoron behalf oftheemployerorsomeotherpersonby whom it is provided in pursuance of arrangements made with the employer.

4 ~~~aR~~~~~R~~~rar~~r~~~~rur~rz~~rThe vehicle was being/not being operated in the ordinary course of publictransport service.

A~kT tic f/~i 'c~ ~~i 3~ti f ~ ~I~ 3~ c~~f(i ~'' 3~'tiTt' ~ A~iTl ~ ~certifythattothebest of myknowledge and belief the above particulars are cored in every respect.

Date of despatch of report

~f ~ TO

3Tif~ NETT 3~ c

Diary No. &Date

~ECifE~tSignature

Designation (With stamp)

2TfLdT A~d~i

Branch Office Manager

FORM N0.18[prescribed under Rule 96 and Under Regulation 68 of Employees State insurance

Act, 1948]Notice of accident or dangerous cecurrence resulting in death or bodily injury

1. Name of occupier (Factory /Employer)

Employees State Insurance Employee Code No

2. Address of works/premises where accident or dangerousoccurrence took place.

3. Nature of Industry.

4. Branch or Department and exact place where the accidenor dangerous occurrence took place.

5. Employees State Insurance number if covered)

6. Name and address of the injured person

7. (a) Sex

(b) Age (last birthday)

(c) Occupation of the injured person

(d) Monthly wages of the person injured

8. Local Fanployees State Insurance Office to whichthe injured person is attached.

9. Date, shift and hour of accident or dangerousoccurrence.

10. (a) Hour at which the injured person started workon the day of accident or dangerous occurrence.

(b) Whether wages in full or part are payable to himfor the day of the accident or dangerous occurrence.

11. Cause or nature of accident or dangerousoccurrence.

(a) If causes is by machinery.

(i) give name of the rr~chineand the part which involved theaccident or dangerousoccurrence.

(ii) state whether it was movedby mechanical power at thatbme.

(b) state exactly what the injured person was doingat that time.

(c) in your opinion, was the time of accident ordangerous occurrence.

(iii) by whom it is provided inpursuance of arrangementsmade with the employer; and

(iv) the vehicle being/not beingoperated in the ordinary courseof public transport service.

13. In case the accident or dangerousoccurrence happened while meeting anemergency, state-

(i) its nature.

(ii) whether the injured personat the time of accident ordangerous occurrence wasemployed for the purpose of hisemployer's trade or business inor about the premises at whichthe accident or dangerousoccurrence took place.

14. Describe briefly how the accident ordangerous occurrence occurred.

15. Names and addresses of witness

1)

.2)

6. (a) Nature and extent of injury (e.g. fatal,ass of fingers, fracture of leg, scaled or

(i) acting in contravention of provisions of anyprovisions of any law applicable to him, or

(ii) acting in contravenrion of any orders givenby or on behalf of his employer, or

(iii) acting without instructions from hisemployer

(d) in case reply to (c), (i), (ii), or (iii) is in the~rmative, state whether the act was done for thepurpose of and in connection with the employers tradeor business.

12. In case the accident or dangerous occurrencehappened while travelling in the employers transport,state whether -

(i) the injured person was travelling as a

passenger to or from his place of work.

(ii) the injured person was havelling with theexpress or implied permission of his employer.

(iii) the transport is being operated by or onbehalf of the employer or some other person

scratch and followed by sepsis)(b) Location of injury (right leg, left handor left eye, etc.)

17. (a) If the accident is dangerousoccurrence and is not fatal, state whether theinjured person was disabled for more than48 hours.

(b) Date and hour of return to work.18. (a) Physician, dispensary of hospital fromwhom or in which, the injured personreceived or is receiving treatment.(b) Name of dispensary/ panel doctor electedby the injured person.

19. (i) Has the injured person died.ff so, date of death.

Note: (1) To be competed in legible handwriting or Type Writing.

(2) For purposes of item 7- (d) in this Form the definition of wages in Section 2 (m) of theWorlmien's Compensation Act, 1923 (Central Act VIII of 1923) and the method laid down in Section 5 of

the said Act, regarding calculation of month wages shall be adopted.

I certify that to the best of my lrnowledge and belief the above particulars are correct in every respect.

Signature

ate of despatch of report Name and Designation of Occupiere ofmanager/Employer

Employer's address and E.S.I. Code

No.................

(This space is to be completed by the Inspector of Factories)

DistrictNumber of the accident or dangerous occurrence:

Industry No. ;Other particulars (e.g. fatal, leg injury, arm injury etc.);Date of investigation ;Result of investigation ;

Date of receiptCausation No.

Sev (W.M.B. or G.):

L / ~M" L V ..

;~?r`~., ' GOVERNMENT ~,._ ..., . ,., ~ ~~iT ~iZ ,,.~.,~ ,., ...fin,_._....

'~-"' ~;,' LABOUR DEPARTMENT / ~{ ~{TtT, 41~. ~.,ma,...b ~.~.~,

~ .~

Checklist for Inspection

I-General

Sr. C'ha Section Rulc llctails Ycs / 1VoNo. etc€• / N.A.

l 9 7 Has the management obtained a licence for running the factory forcurrent year.a ~-{regardinb

II-RECORDS/REGISTERS/RETURNS

2 [II 11 l8 Is White Washing Register in Form no.7 Maintained (Rule-18)?

~ 1 V 22 58 Is Register of Tight C(oth in Form No. 7-A maintained (Rule-58)?

4 V I 59 8S Is Over Time Muster Roll in Form No.10 maintained (Rule-86)?

5 VI 61 86 Is Notice of Periods of work in Form No.l 1 maintained (Rule-86)?

6 V 1 62 87 Is Register of Adult Workers in From No.12 maintained (Rule-87)?

Is Register of Leave with wages in Form No.15 maintained (Rule-7 VIII 79.1 9494)?

8 VIII 79.2 95 is Leave Book in Form No.l6 issued to workers (Rule-95)?

9 IX 88 lye Is Register of Accidents &Dangerous Occurrences in Form No.26

-- ---- — -----maintained (Rule-111)?

--- - ----

10 XII 11'' I I? is there is any inspection book in Form No.35 maintained correctly i

69A

up to date (Rule-I 12)?

~ I I XI 108 Are notices under different sections of Factories Act displayed? (18,19, 20, 38, 61, 108 &Rule 69-A etc.) ?

Are following returns as prescribed furnished by the manager to the Chief Inspector:

12 XI 110.1 107 Annual Return in Eorm No.21 in duplicate fo05-Sep-03r the yearending 31st December, 2k2 on or before 1 Sth January, 200__?

13 XI 110.2 107 Half-Yearly Return in Form No.22 in duplicate for the periou ending30`~ June, 2kl.on or before ISth June, 200 ?

14 XI 110.3 107 Annual Return of Accidents Form No.31 in duplicate for the year~_ _ ending 31°̀ December, 200_on or before 15th January,200_? __

cc>vr:€ivNt~yr or ~i,~~iYn~;v ~~art~n ~r~~r~ ,. „~~~r~,. ,,.,

ViiUVl~i\ ULl~A I\! 1~'i i.ii 1 i ni~iT') ~'y ~~j'j~

r•:'n~~ ~uu~

. ~_ ._ _ ' _".... ~saise

____ '~~Y r"__ _ r

i77 771.E l i ri~ii _~iii-iiu~il. € n

~S ~~~~)~~€) Is the factory kept clean [Section-I I (1)(a)]?

I( IIl I t(I) (b) Is the floor of every workroom washed at least once in a week[Section-I1 (V)]?

17 III I I([) (c) Are the drains properly constructed and kept cle<u~ [Section-I

~~)~~))~

Arc the inside walls and ceilings including all woodwork, lime-18 (II 1 1(1) (d)

washed or colour-washed once in 14 months or painted or varnishedonce in five years [Section-1 1 (1)(d)]?

19 ll( 12

—

19

- ---

How are the trade wastes and effluents disposed of, if in an

~

unsanitary manner, what measures have been advised to the Imanagement [Section-12, Rule-19]?

20 I11 13(1) (a) Are the ventilation adequate and working conditions comfortable

[Section-13 (I)(a)]?

21 III 13(1) (b) Is the temperature in the workrooms comfortable? If not, what are

the measures to be taken [Section-13 (I)(b)]?

22 II1 14.1 Is dust or fume given off in the manufacturing process? If so, are the

exhaust arrangements satisfactory [Section-14 (1)]?

23 III 15.1 ]s artificial humidification carried on? Cf so, is purified water used

for purpose [Section-15.2]?

24 til 15.2 19, 21 Are adequate numbers of hygrometers of the prescribed

specifications provided [Rule-19, 21]?

25 111 15.3 24 Is humidity Register in Form 6 maintained (Rule-24]?

26 IIl 15.4 20 is artificial humidification controlled? Is a copy of the schedule

appended to rule 20 affixed near each hygrometer [Rule-20]?—\

27 [II 16.2 Is any workroom over crowded? Is sufficient floor area and air space

provided for each worker [Section-16.2]?

28 III 17 Is lighting in all the rooms and passages sufficient and suitable

[Section-17.1, 2, 3J?

29 III 18.1 26 Is sufFiciOnt quantity of drinking water provided for the use [Rule-

26J?

30 III 18.2 37, 38 What is the source of supp;;~? If it is not from public water supply

system, has it been approved in writing by the Heath Officer [Rule-

37, 38]?

GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA/ fT ~fiTZ

LABUUR DEPART'MEN'T / ~ ~iTJT,~~

31 III 18.3 39 Is drinking water stored in suitable vessels with water taps and dust-proof covers placed on raised platfornls in shade and with masonrydrains ro carry away the spilt water [Rule-39]?

32 [Il 18.4 4l Arc more than 250 persons employed? If so, is cool drinking watersupplied Rule-41 ]?

33 I11 19.1 62 is sufficient latrine and urinal accor€unodation provided to theworkers? Arc there separate latrines and urinals for female workers[Rule-62]?

34 IIl 19.2 43 Are the latrines and urinals of an approved type [Rule-43]?

35 lIl 19.3 49 Are the latrines provided with a roof? Are the seats partitioned andeach partition provided with a proper door and fastenings to secureprivacy [Rule-49j?

36 III 19.4 49 Are the walls of the latrines and urinals white washed or colour-wasted at least once in every four months [Rule-49~?

37 [lI 19.5 50 Are the latrines and urinals kept clean [Rule-SOJ?

38 [11 19.6 51 Are water taps or water cisterns with cans provided in the latrines

39 II1 19.7 44 Are pictorial sign Boards e3chibited at the entrance of latrines formen and women [Rule-44]?

40 [II 20 52, 53, Are sufficient numbers of spittoons of the prescribed type provided?54 Are these kept clean [Rule-52, 53, 54j? ~ _

IV-SAFETY

41 N 6.1 Arc the building plays of the factory approved by the Chief Inspectorof Factories?

— '~

42 IV G.Z I las the certificate of stability (Forni 1-B) been submitted and_ __ accepted by Chief Inspector of Factories? __ __

43 lV 6.3 Are the buildings constructed in accordance with the a roved tans?

44 IV 6.4.1 If not, unauthorized additions and alteration were made in buildingon or about.

45 N 6.4.2 If not, unauthorized additions and alteration were made in machinery--_ _ on or about. _ - -- — --- ~

4G IV 6.4.3 If not, unauthorized additions and alteration were made in motivower, on or about. _ ___

47 IV G.4.4 If not, introduction of any dangerous hazardous operation, on o

ahouL _ . _~

f; (1VF1?N1~ACniT iii ~:i~i~ir~i~iHi Of<41"11 t1C~Alr ~=~''~;..;~~:

LABOI:R ~EPAR7'N1~,N"t / AfiT ~x1T7T,

,~.._. ~t M9~I+1y

48 I V 2 I . I . l Are all exposed moving parts of a prime mover and flywhee

~-

connected to it ro erl uarded Section-21.1. I J?

49 IV 21.1.2 Are headrace and tailrace of water wheel and water turbine properluarded Section-21.12 ?

50 IV 21.1.3 Is any part of stock bar, which projects beyond the head stock oflathe properly guarded [Section-21.1.3]?

Are dangerous parts of electric generators motors of rotary convector51 IV 21.1.4 a ro erl uarded Section-21.1.4 (a ?

52 iV 21.1.4 b() Are eve ry part of transmission machinery properly guarded [Section

__

~~-- - 21.1.4 (b))? —~

53 IV 21.1.4 (c) Are dangerous parts of any other machinery properly guardeSection-21.1.4 c ?

Ares ecial recautions taken incase of the followin machine Section-21.2 read with Rule 55

54 IV 21.7.1 55-Sch-1

Cotton and textile machinery [Schedule-I, Rule-55]?

55 IV 21.7.2 55-Sch- Cotton and ginning machinery [Schedule-II]?II ___

56 IV 21.7.3 55-Sch- Wood working machinery [Schedule-III]?_

57

__ __

IV -21.7.4

III

55-Sch- Rubbermilis[Schedule-IVY?IV

~8 IV 21.7.5 55-Sch- Centrifugal machines [Schedule-V]?V

~9 IV 21.7.6 55-Sch- Power press [Schedule-VI]`?VI

55-Sch-60 IV 21.7.7 VII Shears, Slitters and Guillotine machines Schedule-VII ?

61 I V 22. I Are only experienced and trained men wearing tight fitting clothinallowed to lubricate1the bearings and shift belts on pulleys in motioSchedule-22.1 ?

62 I V 22. I Are their names entered in the rescribed re ister Section-22.1 ?

63 IV 22.2 Are women and children prevented from cleaning or lubricatin

machine Section-22.2 ?

64 ~ 1V 23 Are young persons without sufficient training and supervisio

- - - em to ed on dan emus machine Section-23 ?

65 IV 24. l (a) Are ro r belt shiftin devices rovided Section-24.1 a ? ___

66 IV 24.1 b Are ro er belt han ers rovided Section-24.1 b ?

67 [V 24.2 Are suitable devices for cutting off power in emergencies in eve

worivoom rovided and ke tin order Section-24.2 ?

COVERNMI:`~ ̀ (ifs t~ARYANA/ E~Tuf( ZY1~i~~UR DEPARTMENT / ~{ ~'~TT7T,i

a- o

68 IV 27 Are women and children employed in a room in which cotton openeis at work [Section-27]?

69 1V 28.1 Are hoists and lifts suitable constructed and properly maintaine[Section-28]?

70 IV 28.2 Are they periodically examined at least once in six months bycompetent person and the prescribed register maintained [Section2.8.2 ?

71 IV 29 Are cranes and other lifting machinery (other than hoists and liftssuitabl constructed and ro erl maintained Section-29 ?

72 IV 29 (a)(iii) Are the cranes of IiRing machines periodically examined at least oncein 12 months and the prescribed register to this effect maintaine[Section-29 (a)(iii) ?

73 IV 30 Are the provisions of Section 30 complied in respect of revolvinmachine and the re uired notice exhibited?

74 IV 3l 61 Are special precautions taken in the case of pressure plants and arthese eriodicall examined [Section-31, Rule-61 ?

75 1V 32 (a) Are floors and stairs and passages €naintained properly and hand railrovided on ste s, stairs, etc. Section-32 (a)]? ___ ___~

76 IV 32 (b) Are safe means of access provided to all the places of work [Section32 (b) ?

--V—~

77 1V 33 Are all the tanks, its, etc., securel covered Section-33 ?

78 IV _34 _ 63 Are excessive wei ht carried b_ the workers [Section-34, Rule-63]'?~_

79 IV 35 62 Arc proper precautions taken for protection of eyes [Section-35, Rule j62 ?

80 IV 3G Are necessary precautions taken against dangerous fumes [Section36 ?

81 IV 37 Are necessa recaulions taken a ainst ex losions [Section-37]?

82 IV 38. I Are means of escape in case of fire adequate [Section-38.1]? ___

83 IV 38.2 66.1 (b) Are exit doors of not less than 66'x3' size provided and tilted to slid_ _ ___ _ __ or o en out war~Section-38.2, Rule-66 (I)(b))? _____

84 lV 38.3 6G.1 (e) Are stair-cases constructed in accordance [Section-38, Rule-G ~-- U)~~))~ -- - --~---- --

RS IV 38.7 6G.3 Are the passage~ti•ays, etc. free of obstructions [Section-38.7, Rule66.3 ? __ _ _

------ ~-

86 IV 38.4,.7 66.3 (b) Are adequate precautions taken against danger of fire [Section-i8.4~38.7, Rule-66 ~~)~b))~ -------~-- --- __

...ntiu+l. k;..~~,.~M.~ ,.,~~~GOVERNMENT OF HARYA~IA/ I ~T~il~ ~~.

LABOt)R OF,PAItTMFNT I ~~?m,___ nail 0afw~.

~7 ~ ~~ 39 Is there any building or part of building or machinery or plant indangerous condition? !f so, what is the action to be taken to avoid thidan er Section-39 ?

88 I V 40 Is any building or pan of building in a dangerous condition involvinimminent danger to human life or safety? If so, what is the action tbe taken Section-40 ?

66(b),--

89 IV 41.1 66 c) Is an breach of the rovisions of Rules 66 (A) to 66(F ? __ _1

90 IV 41.2 67 Are ladders used for mounting belts provided with safety hooks, etc.Ci

Rule-67 ? ----

Electrical Installations Safe uards — ---~!

91 IV 413.1 Is wirin safe?i

92 1V 413.2 Is unauthorized access to switch gears &station (generator room) isr `i.n~l S"~' ~ ~-----~

93 [V 41.3.3 Are flexible cords /cables are routed through or along walls, Floors ~

&ceiling? --- -~

9~1

-. -

1 V 41.3.4 Are there no damaged / faulty switches /plugs /jointing /fuse boxes i/distribution boards? ___~

95 IV 413.5 Are Earthling &Polarity checks carried out as required?

96 IV 41.3.7 66-A No building, wall, chimney, bridge, tunnel, road, gallery, stairway,-ramp, floor, platform, staging ar other structure whether of apermanent or temporary constructed, situated or maintained in the

factory in such a manner as to cause [risk of life or of bodily injury]?

97 IV =1 i .3.K 66-B Are machinery, plant or equipment constructed, situated, operated or ~~maintained in the factory in such a manner as to cause [risk of life or

bodily injury]?

98 IV 41.3.9 66-C Are process or work carried on in the factory in such a manner so as

1 V X11.3. I 0

to cause [risk of life or bodily injury.]

99 66-ll Are materials or rega~irement stacked or stored in such a manner soas to cause [risk of life or bodiiy injury.]

V-WELFARE

100 V 42 Are adequate and suitable washing facilities (including soap and

brushes, etc.) provided separately for men aqd women [Section-42]?

1 U 1 V 43 68-A Has a room for storing and drying of clothes been provided in the

_-- -- --factory [Section-43, Rule-68 (a)]? ~

l 02 V 45 (a) 69 Are sufficient numbers of First-aid Boxes provided according to the

scale with all the required equipments [Section-45 (a), Rule-69]7

e~i~i+ .. r_~~~tr.r1 .44:eR Ko

`` ~ •^° •~•

-+... .

GOVERNMENT O ~ ~"ii~

-

LABOUR DEPARTMENT / ~Pi T, ~~

_ ~. ~

103 V 45.3 Are these kept in a charge of trained persons [Section-45(3)]?

104 V 45.4 70 is an ambulance room required to be provided and if so, is itprovided? Mention the staff appointed where the ambulance room isfully equipped [Section-45.4, Rule-70]?

1 OS V 46 Is the Canteen provided?

l06 V 47 78 Is a Rest Room provided (Rule-78]?

07 V 48 79 Is the cr8che provided [Rule-79]7

108 V 49 Is a Welfare Officer appointed in the factory [Section-49]?

L09 V 20.4 70 Is the factory providing a Ambulance?

110 V 20.5 66 Is the factory providing a Safety Officer?

VI-WORKING HOURS

1 1 V 1 ~ 110 Is the must roll maintained in form 25 or any other registercontaining the same information maintained [Rule-110J? J

-- - -- i

1 I "? I V I ~ 51 Is there any adult worker employed for more than 48 hours in any

~~ week [Section-51]? --

13 I V I 63 is an worker re uved to work for hours other than specified in theY Q ~i

--~---~ notice of periods of work [Section-63]? ~

14 V 1 52. I (a) (f any person was employed on the first day of any week, was !

substituted holiday given [Section-52 (I)(a)]? 1

5 V I 52.1(b)(i) Was a notice delivered to the Inspector in accordance with Section

52(1)(b)([)?

16 V1 52.1 Was a copy of notice in (b) above displayed in the factory [Section-

',.(b)(ii) 52.1 (b)(ii)]?

__

17—

Vl ,55 Are any workers exempted from sections 51 and 55?— — --

18 VI 59.1 Are overtime wages paid in accordance with Sectjon 59?

19 VI 66.1 (b) Is any woman employed in the night shift between 5 p.m. and 6 a.m. I

[Section-66.1 (b)]?

120 V I 53 !s the factory exempted from Section 52? If so, are compensatory

holidays granted [Section-53]?

121 VI 53 83 Is a register maintained in form No. 9 [Rule-83]?

(.OVERNMFnt~~ pg F~ n RY 1`! :; 'o~'~'^`^ 7it~< ~" °'~ %~~ ~~ ~w='~;

~ LABOUR ~F,PARTMENT/ ~i ~T,~t~'

~j — .nii~n.1.ir~.-~ R tit«i

f . ~I~rm..r.v ~nC 9u h

122 VI 54 Is any adult worker employed for more than nine hours in any day[Section-54]? ~

123 Vl 55 Are intervals for rest granted in accordance with provisions of~ISection 55?

12~ Vl 56 ~ is the spread-over in order [Section-56]?

125 VI 58

__

Are there any overlapping shifts [Section-58]?

~_

126 VI 60 Is any worker required to work on the same day in more than one

_~

~

~_ _ factory [Section-60]? _ ~

127 VI 61.2 86 Is the notice in Form I 1 dis la ed maintained? _.i

128 VI 61.2 86 Are copies of it sent in duplicate to the Inspector [Section-61.2, Rule86 ?

129 VI 64.2 Are all or any of the class of workers exempted under Section 64(2).IF so, what are the processes exempted and from what sections arconditions attached to the exem lion dul observed?

VII-YOUNG PERSON

-.~

130 Vlt 67 Is any child who has not completed 14 years of age allowed to wortin the facto Section-67 ?

131 VII 68 Is any child or adolescent allowed to work without at certificAte o

fitness Section-68 ?

132 VII 68 a) Are certificates of fitness in the custod of the Mana er 68 a ?

133 VfI 68 (b) (s every child or adolescent in possession of a token giving referenc

to such a certificate Section-68 (b ?

134 V 11 71.2 Spread-over for child workers is more than 5 hours per shift [Section71.2 ?

135 VII 71.1 Is notice of periods of work framed for children in form no.13exhibited in the factory in accordance with Section 108(2)? Ar

VII 73

co ies in du licate sent to the Ins ector Section-72.1 ?

136 Is register of child and adolescent child workers maintained correctl

and u to date in form No.14 Section-73 ?

137 VII 74 Is any child allowed to work otherwise than in accordance wirh th

notice of periods of work [Section-74]?

VIII- ANNUAL LEAVES WITH WAGES

!38 V[II 79.1 Is leave with wa es anted in accordance with Section 79 17

I.uVERN.tilI~:NT OF HARYANA/ ~T~ 4iPnyq~^.n/. ~.1̂j^ y~ILsr ~~ l.:.~ ...

1;~ LABOI ]t DEPARTMENT' / ~Pi ~T~~~ ~~~ ](

/ P~~. MwrTw~v ~M lY~l~y'I{

i ̀)

1 X10

141

142

V I11 79.10 I Is leave with wages refused to any worker who is eligible for leavSection-79.10 ?

V 1I I 79.8 Is an scheme framed/a roved under section 79 8 ?

VIII 79.3 Are wages in lieu of leave paid to workers whose services arterminated Section-79.3 ?

V I I1 80 Are wages for leave period calculated and paid in accordance witSection 80?

IX-SPECIAL PROVISIONS

1-l3 IX 9.2 Are dangerous processes covered under Section 2(cb) carried on ithe facto ? If es, ive details.

144 [X 87.1 102 is any breach of safety provisions laid dawn in schedule 1 to XXV Il oRule 102 talon lace Section-87, Rule-102

145 [X 87,1 Are dangerous processes covered under Section 87 and Rule 10carried on in the facto ? If es, ive details. ___ T__ ___

146 IX 87.2 Are adult workers employed on dangerous operations? If yes givNos. --- ——

147

—

IX

_—

87.3 Are young persons employed on dangerous operations? if yes, giv~

~

Nos.

148 [X 87.4 Is any of worker suspected to have contacted any noticeable disease.~ If ~ give full details together with stage it has reached._ ____

149 IX 87.5 Are notices of notifiable diseases sent in accordance with Sec. 89Rule 104?

I50 IX 87.0 Breach of any of the health provisions laid down in schedules ( tXXII of Rule 102, Section 87?

-L--_ _. - ---- ---

51 IX 3K.1 C Are notices of accident sent in accordance with (Section 88 and Rul~

_ i _ 103)? 1 - —~---~--

M1~-c .

~sz


SLD Liti ation A ainstg gRD C Documents

1. RTI Application and Response regarding RDC accidents

2. RTI Application and Response regarding ESI for RDC workers

3. Collective Complaint and Supplement

. ~ ~~1~~1'~ ~,.~ •. j~ ̀~y! ~'ii'

-~F'. ~..

7~"' '~ /~Q7_1~_,..--

~.. ~ ~''r.. ~~• ti

~_ ~ ,

~~. .~ "Ia~~~la~

~. ~.iI~tl~tll~l~l~ ~

I~~~ RIH 54944~211N ~.'The State P......-~rc,rn~ati~n Officer-"Office of Safety and Health,Factory Wing, Lab II p IIFourth Floor, Mini ~~~I~~I~u~l~~ UGurgaon, Haryana ....~~.,. ~4

ReceivedSubiect: Informati~ ,,~ ~ ~,

,~ ~ Dated: -~-4

~~~~~~N~~~~~ N 5547554T034651N ~+~~,.~.~ ~i~~~1J [1111AW ~ ,~ 1~ ~ •' .

... ,.Addressedto........ ....................................,.......... F .. ,..~~~

Dear Sir/Madam, °~ ~ ~~~1 ~~Signature of Receiving ~ —

1Kindly provide us the ~Tg in'~orma~on and documents via registered postat the address given below:

1. Details of accident (of all types) in RDC Steels &Allied Services Pvt. Ltd.Plot No. 190, Sector-8, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon from the year 2012 to2014.

2. Provide details of action taken against such accidents by your office.3. Provide inspection report and fine or penalty imposed by inspection

authority on complaint filed by Anannya Bhattacharjee on dated 01-08-2014and 01-09-2014.

Kindly ensure that the information furnished is duly signed and stamped by thecompetent authority. If you use the back side of that paper for providing methe information, please get that side also duly signed and stamped by thecompetent authority.

Enclosed here is a postal ordto Information Act, 2005. Thyyour office is requested to inrequired for furnishing such i

Sincerely,

Gunjan SinghC-23, 15t Floor (Rear Side)Hauz Khas,New Delhi-110016

~ wnVw1 COUPITERFOII A li~ ,~T~ ~t her anal ae se ~l iTo be d~tach~d end kept

by tM Seder.

~rtt~ 50.00 Rs.

POSTAL ORDER

quisite fee as per Rightis registered post andfee (if any) which is

To wlam p~y~N

At wMt Offle~. l~'f-QA..

w M .air 1M~ twM,N.. ao...a....:~.,t~R.w

o~.u',.~'~.l.~~t~,~.~

80~ ~~ d by CamScanner

~~-1-'S'ii1.1'i ~~~

.fit rl:-~1~1 ~hl~~f~~~~ ,;~"...

•~••f•,~dl ~ci,•,~ ./lnt Il~i•~~•

~.x~ n ~1 . ~ r t~~1•i =iD 0124—?37U?(i~, 2370333. .'~c•1 '!`+1 •10 1t+00-180—.' i28 ~

'r ,+,~ s .~'_ a ~'~ +t~~ f;u~~a~,r1C~_~'~l~'•111~'~~II

t~J~ll:~~ ~v~v>y,rjsr2~tllb!~11~l11 ~f11~

,~~,.t,~~l. 17 I h ~ I R I'I-2013 I ~ C~ (, (, UateJ. 25-09-2014

X6T~~

tints. Rrtu Singh,C-2~, [;ack tii~ir, t~irst I~I~~ur,Itcar Puni~m, }{au~ Khan,\r~~ Drltti- 11UOlb.

tiuh: I\FORA1.~1'ION UNDER fZTI r1CT 2005-Rcg Souf~ht by Smt. Retu Sineh

Sir,

pease refer to your application under RT/ Act ~~ddressed to CPIG, Employees' State

1,^sG'!'3n~e CO€;~~fati~rl. SRD, Gurg.:on, orr the ab~~,~~:.su~j~ct. In this re5~€rd information

pertaining to this office is as be~low:-

Point no 1:-Investigation was done by the area SSO on 12/07/2014.

Point no 2:- During investigation 148 employees ere found working in M/~' RDC Steels &

Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. and all employees were~o~`~d under ESIC. List ~~~ all employees

and their IP No. is enclosed.

Point no 3:- The complainant was advised to contact Branch Manager Rajiv Chowk,

Gurgaon in respect of Sh. Sharukh Khan.

Appellate authority in this office rs as under.•

Sh. D.K. Mishra.Director(I/C),ESI Corp,Plot No.47, Sector34,

Gurgaon(Haryana).

Yours fait illy,

ee ~<<~

Dy Director !Ad -,L3c CPIO

_ Scanned by CamScanner

r- ~~~ Date ...................

. ti ~' -_--

;-~y~~,1t~~__.__ ______

'= ~ ̀ ~`~~ ~'~~~

~~-''~`~ ~ G~ ~ ~

_—~ ~ ~==~ ~^^, ,^?---~' ~

-~`~~~197

?'?So7S63

NAME

AKHLESH

Ati1RESH

ANKUSH

ASHISN KUMAR --

ASHOK

c3FiAGWAN SIN~;H

BHOIA

FATHER'S

JAGESHWAR YADAV

gHAIRO

ASHOK SINGH

VIMLESH

RAM BILASH SHARMA

R/~KESH

Nt~SYAR SINGH

DINESH MANDAL9~=6S'533 BIRJESH ~ SHAMBHU MODHESRA~9=216~~ 81 CHANDAN SINGH SHAMBHU SINGH

>9??943106 DARSHNA ~ RAME~H

>9239S5616 DEEPAK KUMAR MURARI

3923438223 DEEWAN SINGH MOHAN SINGH

3923106888 DHARMBIR JAI PARKASH

X922615359 DUNGER SINGH DILIP SINGH

6923632003 DUSITYANT DHARMVEER SINGH

6922788730 GIRIRAJ SHARMA KISHAN CHAND

5923966682 HEMLATA PRABHU

;g23355811 JASWANT VED PRAKASH

6924018650 JASVYANT SONELAL

6922494946 JHUNA YADAV ~ MADAN SINGH

gg~046836 JITENDER ~ BRIJ A~OHAN

6923984656 KAMLESH ~ BHAIRO

6922432457 KHUSHBU GOPAL RAM

6922441761 KRISHNA GIRIRAJ SINGH

gg22p472pp LAKHAN LAL ~ GANESH RAM

6923984563 LALITA LOKENDER TYAGI

6923502524 MAHESH SHARMA RAJENDER PRASAD SHARMA

6922720631 MANJU DEVI AJAY PRAKSSH

' 6923502172 MD SABUDEEN Cann ~t11 canner

Date .....................

N,'~M~~ r-nTiacr~~sn~~ ~c~n~n~< ni_i r rvn,aisi-~E~n~~~s~:iNn_~3~cnnn HAR[3/~NI

N/~Nn1< SITY/~M DHAR

Nf1Nl-II JANGSEN

I'~1P1'U PURENDER JHA

f'~f'PU RANBlR SINGH

PITY Bti~7AN SINGH

PUSNPA PREM BABU

RAJ KUMAR KARMA PRASAD

RAJESH A(VIAR NATH

~AKESH KUMAR SHAH ULKSHAMI SAH

RAMU,.

CHHEDU

REKHA DEVI HARE RAM SINGH

RINKU DHARMBIR

RITA DEVI JITENDER SHA

SALMA ABDUL KALAM

SAN,lAY RAJ KUMAR PRASAD

SANJAY KANTA THAKUR

SAI~;JU ~ JAGAT NARAYAN SINGH

SANNI ~ MAHESH CHAND

SATISH KUMAR ~ 'HOTS61N~H

SHANKAR YADAV ~ NARAYAN YADAV

SHIV SINGH ~ ~~~.

VIDYA LAL

SHIV SINGH ~ RAMADASH

SITYAM SUNDER .~ BHAGWAN SINGH

SURENDRA SAH ULKSHAMI SAH

VASADEV YADAV

RADHEY KRISHNAVISHNU

ner

ESIC IP DETAILS FOR THEM 0 J - 2014rOR M S RDC ALLIED SERVICES PVT.LTD.

PARTICULARS

S.NQ ESIC NO. NAME

1 6922997727 ANIRUDH SHARMA

2

3

6924 17714-

6923463725

ELNKIT SINGH

BRI ESH

4 6923351177 HARENDER

5 6923495776 HARIOM

6 6923388916 MAN EET

7 ~ 6923550885 MAYA DEVI

8 ~ 6923552443 NAGMA BAN00

9 6924017737 NARENDER

10 6923552412 NAZMA BEGUM

11 6923550842 RINKY KUMARI

12 69233511.81 SAN EEV

13 6923667506 SARASWATI DEVI

14 6924017748 ~HAHIN

15 6923668028 SHIV KESH

1b 692335121. SIKANDRA PRA~APATI

17 6923972848 IrMESH

18 6923663600 VANI~ANA KUMARI

19 ~ 6913058881 VIKRAM KUMAR

20 6923486187 ~ ZAKIR H~JSSAIN


'LG~)/'lU, S}iAN'I'1 NAGAIt, NIiAIt IiER[WAI.A BAG~i, GURGAON(HARYANA)

E~tiall IU-lcliustiicntcrprlscs5~i~yahoo.in - Mob[le No. 9953999167

~Kcf ho :....................................

' Dated :........................................

ESIC IP DETAILS FOR THE ~I

O U

~' 2014

FORM S RDC ALLIED SERVICES P .LTD:

PARTICULARS

S.NO

ESIC N0.

NAME

16923547399

RAKISH KUNIAR

26923667910 'KAMALDEEP SINGH

36923464357

KULDEEP

4

~".6924017764

PRAVEEN SHARMA

56923547405

VISHNU HARI

66923547400

YOGESH SARAWA€T

For KHUSHI EN

. E P ISES

G

Authorised ignatory

LVA.~

~ +~------------~--_____ ._ ____...~.. ___ _ ~̀.i _.._.. _.._...~

~.K MArvPowER sERv~cE .~ ~~..~j~Fs In dl Klnd~ 01 Labours, Nous~Ic,wpinQ,Consultr~ry,d~cwlty 8irvlo~ WOS4SN26~? "~_~~.~...

IMT iAanesar Sector-7 Maln AAarket Neu. S~mnt Cln~ma Bashkushl~ _

N,p;

em+~it.bkm~n Dwane

Name ~e ESIC NO.

1 Rakesh DRV 6923186071

Z Sunfi DRV 6923957050

3 Subhash Mnt 6923748935

4 Ra ender T~~ 6923616607

6 Avdhesh new ~ 6923748950

6 Santoshi Gu to Dril 6924036226

7 Doodhnath h 6924036243

8 Darshan GH 6924036253

9 Pawan Kumar DH 6924036269

70 VIKASH h 6923956789

~91 DHEERAJ h 6923956868

12 San'eet h 6924018221

13 RAMDEEN h 6g2 018229

14SOHAN LAL h . 6924018156

16 RAMESH h . ~ .: ~ 6924018=58

16 RA,lESH h (924018160

77 GANGA DEVI h ~ 6924036288


LC~~1 EMPC EMPNAME

1 6059 MADHU SHARMA

2 6076 TARA DEVI

rH i nc~~~~i~i~

DEV KARAN SHARMA

MAHENDER

SEXF

~F

ESINO

6923578149

6923691534

3 6077

4 6079

RAJU ~

MEENA bEVI

MAHE~NOER .

SURDRA SINGH

M

F69236g~358

692369.t5~75

5 6080

6 6081

SA~fITRI DEVI ~

AKHLtSH KUMAR YADAV

RAMAN.AND

MUNNA LAL YADV

~

(~'i

692369: 105

6923691579

7 6084 VINAY KUMAR YADAV SHAMUNT SINGH M 6923691606

8 6091 MD SHARIF MD TAlJULHAQ M 6923692364

9 6102 MONU BRUESH SINGH M 6923$79316

1.0 6105 GEETA DEVI MANOJ KUMAR F 6923879332

11 6109 VINOD MISHRA RAMESHWAR MISHRA M 6923896818

12 6112 VUENDRA KUMAR RAJVEER SINGH M 6923990448

13 6115 JOGENDRA BABU " MAHENDRA SINGH M 6923896987

14 6116 MAIHILA DEVI RAM SHANKAR F 6924029696

15 6117 PURAN S1NGH RAM SHANKAR M 6924029763

16 6121 RAM DEVI ~. BHARTILAE,K`4`.'~ M 6924029814

17 6122 ANJANA ~ ~ BHRATILAEK ~ F 6924029663


S.NO NAME

1 AIAY KUMAR

2 AMIT KUMAR

3 ARUN KUMAR YADAV ~

4 E3HUPENnER

5 CHANDRAKALI

6 DINESH

7 KAUSHLENDER

8 LALI

9 MAHIMA SHUKLA

10 NEETA

11 NIKASH

12 RAJ KUMAR 1

13 RAJU

14 RAM KISHAN

15 RINKY

16 RfTA

17 SATISH KUMAR

18 SAN705H

19 SANIEEV KUMAR

20 SHEELA

21 SHIV BAHADUR SINGH

22 VIPIN

Father &Husband

RAMESH CHAND

SUBHASN

HARDYA NARAYAN YADAV

MADAN SINGH

BHANU PRATAP

DHAN SINGN

KAMESSHWAR ,.

GOPAL

DEEP NARAYAN SHUKLA

RAM RAJ

VIJAY PAL SINGH

BHAGWATI PRASAD

PHOOL SINGH

JANGLI

BIRBAL

NUR SINGH

Esic

5922057511

6924045759

6924070951

6921024697

6924020662

692400917

6923972502

6924020440

6924021651

6924020562

6924018770

6922459567

6924020884

692390QS42

6923741618

6924020464

1AGDISH ~ ~ 6923648698

RAM SINGH 6924045788

DHANVANT SINGH 6924045841

BRIJESH SINGH 6924021750

1AGDAMBA PRASAD SINGH 6923659489

BRUESH S1NGH 6924020486

~iS~t` ~7f~.t~f ~f~'~`_


Metal and Manufacturing Worker's Union

Pl~t'~'~.1. Ran'~iaichand Complex

~~pp. 1N;litary Station, Jwala Mill, Old Delhi-Gurgaon Road

Gurgaon,HaryanaPhone: 0124-4385478

Date: 0~-10-2014

j U,

Deputy DirectorSafety and Health,Factory Wing, Labor Dept.Fourth Floor, Mini Secratariat,Gurgaon, Haryana

Su__ bj_ect: Complain against criminal negligence by the management which iscausing frequent accidents in the company.

Dear Sir/Madam,

We, Metal and Manufacturing Worker's Union are based in Gurgaon and workfor social upliftment and betterment of worker's employed in metal and autoparts sector. We are closely working with worker's of RDC Steels &AlliedServices Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 190, Sector-8, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon and havereceived several complaints about the violations of labour law provisions andsafety norms within RDC.

With this complain we have attached details of accidents which had occurred inthis year and had been reported to us. We request you to kindly ensure legalcompliance on an urgent basis and according to the law of the land. We wouldlike you to take serious action against the management for such criminalnegligence.

Yours Truly,Anannya Bhattacharjee

rescidrntMetal and Manufacturing Worker's Union

Plot No.l, Rao Maichand Complex ~

Opp. Military Station, Jwala Mill, Old Delhi-Gurgaon Road ~~1~

Gurgaon,Haryana l~q ~~~


Details of accidents

;n RDC

~

Name of contractor

~j~

excellent main power

S arukh khan

khushi enterprises

Ra~kumarexcellent main power

~ajesh~• "excellent main power

Sumeeh-eerexcellent main p

ower

Bhagwan Singhexcellent main p

ower

Darsana deviexcellent main p

ower

Sau~av Srivastavaexcellent main p

ower

Date of accident

Injured body Pa

11-02-2014

finger

14-02-2014finger

03-03-2014finger

21-08-2014fir;gp~

29-06-2014linger

29-08-2014finger

March monthfinger

OS-OS-2014finger

c~VV

MPtai ,end Menu/acturing Worker's Union

Pict Nc~ 1, Rr€r~ M~+th,~rtid Car»plea

` ~'~P~ ~'~ 'pry ~tah~n, €w~i~ M~il~ f)Id Ur~lh~ ~ ~~,~ ~~iur~ Ftu~~i

Citlr~;.~~rt,kl,Zrystt~.i

{'hont~*: pt ~ld ~338`_~~3 Jai

C.)ate: U] t1q Idle

1 q,

l~~F~uty DirectorSafety .end F~e~Ith,Factory Wing, L~bc~r L~~~pt.Fourth I i~oi, Mini Secr~~t~iriat,Gur~ao~~, Mary~~na

SubieCt: Co~~ectiv~.~ C:or1y lain on serious violations of labour laws in RUC Steels and Allied

Services Pvt. ltd due to non implementation of Industrial safety and health norms and

~ y criminal negligence by the m~~nagE~ment.,,;,, Dear Sir/Madam,

We, Metal and Manufacturing Worker's Union are based in Gurgaon and work for social

upliftme~nt and betterment of worker's employed in metal and auto parts sector. We are

closely working with worker's of RDC Steels &Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 190, Sector-8,

IM1 Manesar, Gurgaor~ and have received several complaints about the violations of labour

law provisions and safety norms within RDC and such lack of necessary safety equipment,

m~-~chine dysfunction and criminal negligence on the part of management leads to serious

accidents.

We wo~ild like to bring into your notice that we had earlier filed several complaints against

this company but Still violation; are taking place in the said corT~pany. We w~u!d !ike to

bring into your notice that recently on 21-OS-2014 again a fatal accident took place in the

company in which worker Mr. Rajesh, age 28 years, r/o viii- Sukulpur, Chakwira, P.O- Orai,

Dist. Bhadhohi, UP had serious injury and his finger amputated. l here are many other

major violations of this kind in the company and few of therm are as follows:

1. Serious Violations:

a) Incidents h~~ve been reported where supervisor has asked pregnant lady to lift

heavy articles and has employed her in heavy works.

€~) Machines installed doesn't have censor installed in it, which often leads to fate

' accident.

Scanned by CamScar

~I ~ rn.€tc n.il•, •,uc.h a~, drer~.~, c.,ip, •,huc~~. Ih~~ rr.Gir~vr~lvi•rl Sri ~iir,r~-, (~~r, f;r•n<tin~;, ~'~~nc.hin~; i~, high.

Z, I.~Ck of b~sit ~rnt•nitic~S at th~~ work place-

%~) Duriny ~,~~rrirnr~r thr~~r~ i~, ~~~~ ~~r~~~~~•r .irr.~n~;ernc~nt of f.~n fc~r the wurkc~r~~. ~f~c'r1 UfT1FJ(~r cif f.lfl', •If(~ f~j•,~~~~~~~~~rtlOfldt(~ ~O 1f1(' nurr€ber of workErrs ('f1~;8E;('.(~.

h) 7h~!r~~ i~, n~~ f,~~,ility f~~r cr~lci w.~tc>r and thc~ water available is not clean.

rl) ~ hFrrt~ i~. nut -,uf(ic,i~rnt nurnbe~r ref tc~ile.~ts for thc> workers and the available onc.~s

7rt~ n~~t hyyi~~r€ic. ;iricl c.le.~r€.

tJ) ~fh~rc~ is nc~ first ,yid hUx available at the workplace.

r.)'~~fher~.~ iS rya ~.~~ri~~u~~n~•~~5 ~~n hygiene and no soaps or regular cleaning materials are

pravidrd.

In the (iE;ht of abnvemcrnUcmc~d facts we request you to kindly ensure legal compliance on an

urgent I~asis and ~~~.c.c~rrlin~; tc~ thc~ law cif the land. We are seeking your kind attention on

violation of thi~~ in~u~.tic.e ~~nd non implementation of legal provisions. As the

~bovemrntionE~d fa~.t~, ;~r~~ trie matter related to security of workers and your office is

responti~b~~ far the s.~€ne, wee expect appropriate and early action against the management

of the s~~id cnmp7ny ta'~tc~p further violation.

Yours Truly,

Anann ~~ Bhattactiarjc~c~

Pres dent'N~etal and Ma

farturinf; Warkrr's Union

pit po,1, Rao Maichand C omplex

~Pp, Military Station, lwala Mill, Uld Dclhi Gurgaon Road

Gurgao~~Haryana



D GFASLI Statistics

Chapter 8

Statistics on Status of compliance with statutoryprovisions based on data collected by DGFASLI

8.1 The DGFASLI receives information relating to factories covered under the provisions of theFactories Act, 1948 from States and Union Territories from time to time. This information is mainlycollected through FAS Forms as well as through correspondence as and when required. It is enteredin the data bank specially created at DGFASLI for disseminating any specific information as andwhen necessary. This information can be used for knowing the state-wise status of safety and healthas well as compliance level with statutory standards in factories. The information can be used forestimation of various trends. It is emphasized here, that for ascertaining the correctness or theupdated information given in the following pages/tables, the State Governments/Union TerritoryAdministration concerned may be contacted.

Statistics of Factories at a Glance: 2011

Registered Factories 325209

Working Factories 271085

Employment Total 11634070

Men 9826210

Women 1807860

Safety Officers 3587

Welfare Officers 3228

Factory Med. Officers 7464

Safety Policy 13458

Safety Committees 12292

MAH Factories 1599

On-site Emergency Plans 1537

Canteens 8083

Creches 5334

Total Injuries 29837

Fatal Injuries 1433

Table 8.1 Fatal and Non-fatal Injuries in Factories (P)

s~•No.

States/ Union Territories

2010 2011 2012(P)

FatalInjuries

NonFatalInjuries

FatalInjuries

NonFatalInjuries

FatalInjuries

NonFatalInjuries

~. Andaman & Nicobarislands

.. .. .. Nil Nil

2. Andhra Pradesh 188 923 154 898 156 526

3. Assam 6 46 8 69 8 70

a. Bihar 1 15 3 91 9 126

s. Chandigarh 0 2 8 6 1 1

6. Chhattisgarh 84 341 92 308 110 321

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra &Nagar Haveli

14 31 17 38 14 31

s. National Capital of Delhi l5 39 29 43 6 18

9. Goa 12 97 I1 92 8 85

to. Gujarat 221 2430 249 3014 216 2781

1 ~. Haryana 38 51 64 62 15 28

~2. Himachal Pradesh 5 11 17 25 10 11

i3. Jammu &Kashmir Nil 99 4 4 8 5

~a. Jharkhand 43 149 33 149

t 5. Karnataka 92 779 86 813 76 682

t 6. Kerala 7 79 19 73 29 87

17. Madhya Pradesh 68 848 53 1264 45 791

ts. Maharashtra 225 2540 183 2266 215 2333

t9. Manipur .. .. .. .. .. ..

20. Meghalaya 2 12 Nil 1 1 Nil

2t. Nagaland 0 0 Nil Nil Nii Nil

22. Odisha 103 457 60 418 78 335

23. Pudduchery 10 46 10 45 8 30

24. Punjab 14 212 22 198 34 142

2s. Rajasthan 65 534 59 531 34 699

26. Tamil Nadu 75 860 117 624 110 314

z7. Tripura 1 5 Nil 1 2 5

2s. Uttar Pradesh 64 152 63 78 72 102

29. Uttarakhand 9 24 19 78 23 76

30. West Bengal 97 19264 86 17364 62 18693

Total 1459 30046 1433 28404 1383 28441

Note: (i) There are no registered factories in Arunachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, Mizoram and Sikkim.

(ii) P :Provisional (iii) .. :Not Available

Source: Data collected by DGFASLI through correspondence with Chief Inspector of Factories ofStates/UTs,

Table 8.2 State-wise Status of Employment in Factories during 2011(P)

SI.No.

States/ Union Territories RegisteredFactories

WorkingFactories

TotalEmployment

FemaleWorkers

1. Andaman &Nicobar Islands 35 35 4299 194

2. Andhra Pradesh 43881 31926 1107668 210616

3. Assam 4498 3331 41383 3759

4. Bihar 8321 5127 150004 96

5. Chandigarh g22 457 7005 373

6. Chhattisgarh 4224 3610 277271 29665

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra &NagarHaveli

5601 4200 147000 48510

8. Delhi 11714 8219 362270 24098

9. Goa 1287 665 65966 8771

t0. Gujarat 37546 26088 1387157 50291

tt. Haryana 12809 12568 600000 43650

12. Himachal Pradesh 4230 4230 268994 7928

t 3. Jammu &Kashmir 1475 1042 42623 3322

14. Jharkhand 11608 7511 279939 3013

15. Karnataka 13683 13192 1374212 455726

16. Kerala 19676 19676 644606 297502

t7. Madhya Pradesh 7638 7310 307010 8270

t 8. Maharashtra 42863 36066 973782 68165

19. Manipur 1000 1000 10357 1980

20. Meghalaya 139 131 9067 514

21. Nagaland 456 305 29416 5325

22. Odisha 3494 2523 275028 9236

23. Puducherry 2747 2153 79862 9840

24. Punjab 17786 17453 611838 3390

25. Rajasthan 12244 12226 444232 9780

26. Tamil Nadu 38379 30457 1048400 474991

27. Tripura 1486 1486 63976 9985

28. Uttar Pradesh ,.

29. Uttarakhand ..

30. West Bengal 15567 15098 1020705 18870

Total 325209 271085 11634070 1807860



Source: Data collected by DGFASLI through correspondence with Chief Inspector of Factories ofStates/UTs.

Table 8.3 State-wise Hazardous Factories under 2(cb) as on 2011 (P)

SI.

No.

States/ Union Territories No. of HazardousFactories

No. of Workers

1. Andaman &Nicobar Islands 2 177

2. Andhra Pradesh 0 0

3. Assam 12 8385

4. Bihar 45 16157

5. Chandigarh 0 0

6. Chhattisgarh 560 138327

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra &Nagar Haveli 47 1500

8. Delhi 326 14210

9. Goa 133 26168

10. Gujarat 6456 323471

11. Haryana 828 29924

12. Himachal Pradesh 83 13208

13. Jammu &Kashmir 24 1713

14. Jharkhand 284 91612

15. Karnataka 1188 185458

16. Kerala 826 30443

17. Madhya Pradesh 995 79628

18. Maharashtra 4162 216424

19. Manipur 6 967

20. Meghalaya 59 4041

21. Nagaland 0 0

22. Odisha 389 167689

23. Puducherry 202 17790

24. Punjab 423 35144

25. Rajasthan 1056 112200

26. Tamil Nadu 2592 217408

27. Tripura 19 1133

28. Uttar Pradesh ..

29. Uttarakhand

30. West Bengal 4973 268379

Total 25690 2001556



Source: Data collected by DGFASLI through correspondence with Chief Inspector of Factories of

States/UTs.

Table 8.4 Inspectors of Factories for the year 2011 (P)

SI. N0. States/ Union Territories Sanctioned In-position



3. Assam 29 25

4. Bihar 21 8

5. Chandigarh 0 6

6, Chhattisgarh 27 10

~, Daman &Diu and Dadra &Nagar Haveli 1 ~

8. Delhi 15 10

9. Goa 7 4

10. Gujarat 124 81

11. Haryana 36 33



14. Jharkhand 25 18

15. Karnataka 46 46

16. Kerala 57 58


i 8. Maharashtra 131 72

19. Manipur 2 3

20. Meghalaya 4 4

21. Nagaland 3 3

22. Odisha 34 30

23. Puducherry 10 8

24. Punjab 25 8

25. Rajasthan 40 21

26. Tamil Nadu 132 102

27. Tripura 5 4

28. Uttar Pradesh .. ••

29. Uttarakhand .. ••

30. West Bengal 72 41

Total 972 743


(ii) P :Provisional (iii).. :Not Available

Source: Data collected by DGFASLI through correspondence with Chief Inspector of Factories of

States/UTs.

Table 8.5 State-wise Specialist Inspectors of Factories for the year 2011 (P)

SI.N0.

States/ Union Territories MedicalIns ectors

ChemicalIns ector

HygieneIns ector

Others

~

~

o

a~

~

Q~

o

a~

~

~~

o

a~

~

~~

o

c.

t. Andaman &Nicobar Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Andhra Pradesh 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

3. Assam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 04. Bihar 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0

5. Chandi arh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06. Chhattis arh 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra &Na ar Haveli

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Delhi 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

9. Goa 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

10. Gu'arat 5 2 1 I 0 0 11 5

11. Ha ana 5 3 5 5 0 0 0 0

12. Himachal Pradesh 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

t3. Jammu &Kashmir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

14. Jharkhand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15. Karnataka 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

16. Kerala 4 2 4 4 0 0 2 2

17. Madh a Pradesh 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18. Maharashtra 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

19. Manipur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20. Me hala a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021. Na aland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022. Odisha 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

23. Puduche 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

24. Pun'ab 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0

25. Ra'asthan 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1

26. Tamil Nadu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

27. Tri ura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28. Uttar Pradesh .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..29. Uttarakhand .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..30. West Bengal 9 4 12 5 0 0 0 0

Total 39 19 33 19 1 1 17 9

1Vote: (i) There are no registered factories in Arunachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, Mizoram and Sikkim.



Table 8.6 No. of Certifying Surgeons of Factories for the year 2011 (P)

Sl.No.

States/UTs Employed Notified

Sanctioned Inosition

Sanctioned Inosition

1. Andaman &Nicobar Islands 0 0 4 42. Andhra Pradesh 0 0 0 03. Assam 3 0 0 0

4. Bihar 0 0 0 0

5. Chandigarh 0 0 0 0

6. Chhattis arh 0 0 0 07, Daman Diu and Dadra &Nagar

Haveli0 0 0 1

8. Delhi 1 1 0 09. Goa 0 0 1 0

10. Gujarat 21 9 0 0

11. Haryana 0 0 0 0


13. Jammu &Kashmir 0 0 0 014. Jharkhand 0 0 0 0

15. Karnataka 0 2 0 562

16. Kerala 0 0 0 0

17. Madhya Pradesh 0 0 0 0

18. Maharashtra 1 1 0 58

19. Manipur 0 0 0 0

20. Me hala a 0 0 0 0

21. Na aland 8 0 0 022. Odisha 0 0 0 0

23. Puduche 1 1 0 0

24. Punjab 0 0 0 0

25. Ra'asthan 1 1 0 0

26. Tamil Nadu 8 6 0 027. Tri ura 0 0 13 1328. Uttar Pradesh29. Uttarakhand30. West Ben al 0 0 0 0

Total 44 21 18 650




Table 8.7 No of Factories Inspected in the year 2011 (P)

S~• No• States/ Union Territories All Factories Hazardous Factories

t. Andaman &Nicobar Islands 21 2


3. Assam 1169 0

4. Bihar 2055 40

5. Chandigarh 38 4



180 22

8. Delhi 1830 161

9. Goa 161 54

10. Gujarat 11202 4574

11. Haryana 2744 479

t2. Himachal Pradesh 1750 83


14. Jharkhand 15973 38

15. Karnataka 8542 1056

16. Kerala 15894 726


1s. Maharashtra 8113 1548

19. Manipur 205 6

20. Meghalaya 42 6

21. Nagaland 0 0

22. Odisha 2472 389

23. Pudduchery 1345 160

24. Punjab 1304 96

25. Rajasthan 4103 0

26. Tamil Nadu 25335 4584

27. Tripura 1001 19

28. Uttar Pradesh .. ..

29. Uttarakhand .. ..

30. West Bengal 3418 578

Total 121752 16921




Table 8.8 State-wise Prosecution and Convictions under Section 92 &Section 96A for

the year 2011 (P)

SI.N0.

States/UTs

PendingfromPreviousyear

Launchedduring theyear

Decidedduringtheear

Convi

ctions

Imprison-ment(Person)

Total fineImposed(Rs.)

Andaman NicobarIslands

0 0 0 0 0 0

2. Andhra Pradesh 4164 1357 844 434 0 5658660

3. Assam 7 6 0 1 0 0

4. Bihar 53 12 0 0 0 0

5. Chandigarh 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. Chhattisgarh 722 428 314 226 16 10226100

7. Daman Diu andDadra NagarHawelli

0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Delhi 394 398 107 107 0 1377000

9. Goa 27 12 9 9 0 175500

Gujarat 25268 2359 1319 829 0 3798750

11. Haryana 5760 4249 1565 1477 0 4921000

12. Himachal Pradesh 160 86 69 69 0 728500

13. Jammu &Kashmir 96 66 25 0 0 83000

14. Jharkhand 185 45 0 0 0 0

15. Karnataka 557 227 191 101 0 4756700

16. Kerala 71 27 26 25 0 323000

17. Madhya Pradesh 3272 156 147 0 0 2786550

l8. Maharashtra 1237 652 713 713 0 11836350

19. Manipur 0 0 0 0 0 0

20. Meghalaya 0 0 0 0 0 0

21. Nagaland 0 0 0 0 0 0

22. Odisha 1312 291 8 0 0 52600

23. Puducherry 2 10 10 8 0 393000

24. Punjab 1348 89 267 57 0 2069700

25. Rajasthan 921 121 31 31 1 227825

26. Tamil Nadu 12403 3477 2693 1733 0 23256125

27. Tripura 25 3 14 14 0 81000

28. Uttar Pradesh29. Uttarakhand30. West Bengal 516 518 25 25 0 632550

Total 58500 14589 8377 5859 17 73383910

Note: (i) There are no registered factories in Arunachal. Pradesh, Lakshadweep, Mizoram and Sikkim.



Table 8.9 State-wise Status of Safety Officers (SO) under 40-B (1) in factories during 2011(P)

SI. No. States/UnionTerritories

FactoriesRequiringSO

Factories whoAppointedSO

SORequired

SOAppointed

1. Andaman NicobarIslands

0 0 0 0

2. Andhra Pradesh 120 104 120 104

3. Assam 4 0 4 58

4. Bihar 20 18 26 23

5. Chandi arh 4 4 4 4

6. Chhattis arh 79 87 124 122

7. Daman &Diu and DadraNa ar Haveli

45 48 48 48

8. Delhi 9 4 9 4

9. Goa 56 49 57 50

t0. Gu'arat 317 340 379 411

ll. Ha ana 90 86 99 92


13. Jammu &Kashmir 14 6 14 6

14. Jharkhand 49 45 152 145

15. Karnataka 186 155 228 203

16. Kerala 46 41 46 44

17. Madhya Pradesh 96 89 114 104

18. Maharashtra 1203 987 1203 1429

19. Manipur 3 3 3 3

20. Me hala a 0 0 1

21. Na aland 0 0 0 0

22. Odisha 82 75 249 228

23. Puduche 9 8 9 8

24. Pun'ab 56 43 56 43

25. Ra'asthan 79 75 73 81

26. Tamil Nadu 312 271 318 254

27. Tri ura 1 0 1 0

28. Uttar Pradesh

29. Uttarakhand

30. West Ben al 252 108 278 108

Total 3146 2661 3628 3587



Source: Data collected by DGFASLI through correspondence with Chief Inspector of Factories ofStates/CJTs.

Table 8.10 State-wise status of Declaration of Safety Policy for the year 2011 (P)

Si. No. States/ Union Territories Factories Requiring Factories Having



3. Assam 12 12

4. Bihar 5 5

5. Chandi arh 0 1

6. Chhattis arh 1267 1198

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra Na ar Haveli 55 69

8. Delhi 471 394

9. Goa 295 136

t0. Gu'arat 3795 3657

11. Ha ana 1838 1601

l2. Himachal Pradesh 83 83


14. Jharkhand 83 89

15. Karnataka 1396 1142

16. Kerala 612 563

17. Madh a Pradesh 1080 1048


19. Mani ur 6 6

20. Me ala a 48 33

21. Na aland 0 0

22. Odisha 650 590

23. Pudduche 27 27

24. Pun'ab 584 459

25. Ra'asthan 161 149

26. Tamil Nadu 1646 1367

27. Tri ura 0 0

28. Uttar Pradesh

29. Uttarakhand

30. West Ben al 496 496

Total 14952 13458




Table 8.11 State-wise Constitution of Safety Committee for the year 2011(P)

SI. No. States/ Union Territories FactoriesRequiring

Safe Committee

Factories Having

SafetyCommittee

t Andaman &Nicobar Islands 0 0


3. Assam 12 12

4. Bihar 5 5

5. Chandi arh 0 1

6. Chhattis arh 469 400

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra Na ar Haveli 58 75

8. Delhi 118 96

9. Goa 245 136

t0. Gu'arat 3666 3608

11. Ha ana 954 870



14. Jharkhand 95 84

t5. Karnataka 1231 990

16. Kerala 374 307

17. Madh a Pradesh 652 635


19. Mani ur 6 6

20. Me ala a 24 14

21. Na gland 0 0

22. Odisha 153 l53

23. Puduche 29 29

24. Pun'ab 226 203

25. Ra'asthan 156 146

26. Tamil Nadu 2175 1925

27. Tri ura 19 1

28. Uttar Pradesh

29. Uttarakhand

30. West Ben al 493 493

Total 13880 12292




Table 8.12 State-wise On-site Emergency Plan (in respect of MAH Units) as on 2011(P)

SI. No. States/ Union Territories Factories Requiring

On-site EmergencyPlan

Factories Having

On-site Emergency Plan


2. Andhra Pradesh 158 15]

3. Assam 12 12

4. Bihar 3 3

5. Chandigarh 0 0



0 20

S. Delhi 17 17

9. Goa 17 17

10. Gu'arat 384 370

11. Ha ana 57 57



t4. Jharkhand 9 9

t 5. Karnataka 77 77

t 6. Kerala 47 47

t7. Madh a Pradesh 71 71


t 9. Mani ur 6 6

20. Me hala a 4 4

21. Na aland 0 0

22. Odisha 23 23

23. Puduche 3 3

24. Pun'ab 36 36

25. Ra'asthan 71 71

26. Tamil Nadu 115 108

27. Tri ura 2 2

28. Uttar Pradesh

29. Uttarakhand

30. West Ben al 85 85

Total 1599 1537




Table 8.13 State-wise Medical Facilities in factories for the year 2011(P)

SI. No. States/UnionTerritories

Full time MO Retainership orpart-time MO

Factories havingAmbulance Van

Factories havingAmbulanceRooms

Req. App. Req. App. Req. App. Req. App.

1. Andaman Nicobar Islands

1 0 0 0 2 2 2 2

2. Andhra Pradesh' 275 251 0 0 0 0 232 1963. Assam 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 554. Bihar 15 14 0 0 15 I S 15 155. Chandi arh 1 0 0 1 1 16. Chhattis arh 135 85 365 266 176 144 162 1477. Daman &Diu and

Dadra NagarHaveli

1 0 60 0 20 0 25

8. Delhi 9 9 263 61 25 19 25 199. Goa 41 33 141 79 182 77 25 18t0. Gu'arat 259 189 1937 1805 224 198 235 230t t Haryana 63 65 74 7l 100 90 93 85

t2. HimaGhalPradesh 254 254 1721 1721 178 178 178 178

13. Jammu Kashmir

9 12 0 0 9 12 9 10

14. Jharkhand 87 82 38 31 58 58 47 4515. Karnataka 379 301 208 189 423 325 409 39316. Kerala 46 40 62 58 46 61 67 63]7. Madh a Pradesh 124 116 265 258 104 99 117 114

18. Maharashtra 425 278 334 243 156 248 156 24819. Manipur 1 6 0 0 2 1 2 2

20. Me ala a 5 4 18 15 17 7 1 121. Na gland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022. Odisha 88 78 65 64 88 88 88 8823. Puduche 10 8 28 22 9 9 9 924. Pun'ab 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 8825. Ra'asthan 78 68 43 43 109 91 126 12126. Tamil Nadu 134 98 233 176 284 190 336 25227. Tri ura 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 128. Uttar Pradesh29. Uttarakhand30. West Ben al 292 292 15 15 303 287 303 295

Total 2733 2286 5811 5178 2511 2220 2754 2701

Note: There are no registered factories in Arunachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, Mizoram and Sikkim.P :Provisional. .. :Not AvailableReq: Required App: Appointed


Table 8.14 State-wise Canteens, Shelters, Rest Rooms and Creches for the year 2011 (P)

SI.

No.States/ UnionTerritories

Canteen Shelter, RestRoom, LunchRoom

Creches

FactoriesRequiring

FactoriesHaving

FactoriesRequiring

FactoriesHaving

FactoriesRequiring

FactoriesHaving

1. Andaman NicobarIslands

3 3 8 8 0 0

2. Andhra Pradesh 425 369 578 531 440 376

3. Assam 28 92 62 138 35 32

4. Bihar 30 30 28 28 0 0

5. Chandi arh 5 5 5 5 1 1

6. Chhattis arh 164 142 360 330 32 28

7. Daman Diu andDadra Na ar Haveli

70 85 125 150 97 97

8. Delhi 81 63 131 70 25 12

9. Goa 52 46 91 85 81 0

10. Gu'arat 514 506 875 862 180 170

11. Ha ana 366 318 724 639 102 70

12. Himachal Pradesh 280 280 85 85 41 41

13. Jammu &Kashmir 39 38 60 59 2 2

14. Jharkhand 85 55 100 82 10 19

15. Karnataka 743 714 943 903 1236 1024

16. Kerala 525 477 1141 1125 774 749

17. Madh a Pradesh 202 194 434 430 52 49

18. Maharashtra 1130 2338 3203 6038 713 258

19. Mani ur 6 6 10 10 25 25

20. Me hala a 10 9 22 17 5 2

21. Na aland I 1 0 0 0 0

22. Odisha 153 153 201 201 46 45

23. Puduche 32 27 53 40 5 4

24. Pun'ab 314 267 467 424 136 123

25. Ra'asthan 337 322 528 529 34 34

26. Tri ura 3 2 3 2 1 0

27. Tamil Nadu 1463 1392 2841 2775 2817 2141

28. Uttar Pradesh

29. Uttarakhand

30. West Ben al 465 149 679 169 34 32

Total 7526 8083 13757 15735 6924 5334




Table 8.15 State-wise Welfare Officers for the year 2011(P)

SI. No. State/UTs FactoriesRequiring

FactoriesHaving

OfficersRequired

OfficersAppointed

1. Andaman &Nicobar Islands 2 1 2 1

2. Andhra Pradesh 180 145 180 145

3. Assam 17 107 17 175

4. Bihar 28 28 27 27

5. Chandigarh 4 4 4 4

6. Chhattisgarh 105 105 108 110

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli

25 25 25 25

8. Delhi 25 25 26 25

9. Goa 16 16 16 16

10. Gujarat 213 198 226 220

1]. Haryana 138 125 146 132


i3. Jammu &Kashmir 14 13 4 4

14. Jharkhand 92 56 81 70

15. Karnataka 406 406 446 446

16. Kerala 56 55 62 60

17. Madhya Pradesh 121 117 141 140

t 8. Maharashtra 526 526 708 705

t9. Manipur 1 I 1 1

20. Meghalaya 1 1 I 1

21. Nagaland 0 0 0 0

22. Odisha 88 88 126 126

23. Puducherry 10 7 10 7

24. Punjab 102 80 102 80

25. Rajasthan 161 142 152 146

26. Tamil Nadu 433 365 442 373

27. Tripura 1 1 1

28. Uttar Pradesh

29. Uttarakhand

30. West Bengal 324 122 324 122

Total 3155 2825 3444 3228




Table 8.16 Notification of Model Rules framed under the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987

SI. No. States/ Union Territories Model Rules

t Andaman Nicobaz Islands No hazardous unit, hence Rules Notapplicable

2. Andhra Pradesh Notified

3. Assam Notified

4. Bihar Notified

5. Chandigarh Notified in Punjab Factories Rules

6. Chhattisgarh Under Progress

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra &Nagar Haveli Under process

8. National Capital Territory of Delhi Notified

9. Goa Notified

10. Gujarat Notified

11. Haryana Notified

12. Himachal Pradesh Not Notified

13. Jammu &Kashmir Not Notified

14. Jharkhand Notified

IS. Karnataka Notified

t6. Kerala Notified

17. Madhya Pradesh Notified

18. Maharashtra Notified

19. Manipur Draft submitted for Govt. approval

20. Meghalaya Notified

21. Nagaland Draft submitted for Govt. approval

22. Orissa Notified

23. Pondicherry Notified

24. Punjab Notified

25. Rajasthan Notified

26. Tamil Nadu Notified

27. Tripura Notified

28. Uttar Pradesh Notified

29. Uttaranchal Not Notified

30. West Bengal Notified


(ii) P : Provisional (iii).. :Not Available


Table 8.17: Notification of Major Accidents Hazard Control Rules

Sl. No. States/ Union Territories MAHC Rules, 1997

1. Andaman &Nicobar Islands No hazardous unit, hence Rules Not applicable

2. Andhra Pradesh Notified

3. Assam Notified

4. Bihar Notified

5. Chandigarh Notified

6. Chhattisgarh ..

7. Daman &Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli

Notified

8. National Capital Territory ofDelhi

Notified

9. Goa Notified

10. Gujarat Notified

1 t Haryana Notified

t 2. Himachal Pradesh Not Notified

13. Jammu &Kashmir Not Notified

14. Jharkhand Notified

15. Karnataka Notified

16. Kerala Notified

17. Madhya Pradesh Notified

18. Maharashtra Notified

19. Manipur Draft Rules submitted for approval of stateGovt.

20. Meghalaya Notified

21. Nagaland Not Notified

22. Orissa Notified

23. Pondicherry Draft notification under consideration of Govt.

24. Punjab Notified

25. Rajasthan Notified

26. Tamil Nadu Notified

27. Tripura Notified

28. Uttar Pradesh Notified

29. Uttaranchal Notified

30. West Bengal Draft sent for notification



Source: Data collected by DGFASL[ through correspondence with Chief Inspector of Factories ofStates/UTs.


Electronic Files(See attached)

1. Santosh Gupta and Vishweshwar Rai Interview Recording

2. Rajesh and Rajkumar Interview Recording

3. Various Photos

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the...

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the...