Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Instituted To Protect Erring Saf

Bombay High Court dismisses PIL
instituted to protect erring Safety

Officers
03:27 PM Dec 12, 2022 IST | India Legal
(https://m.indialegallive.com/author/India-Legal)
Advertisement
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondents with regard
to the “role, responsibility of the ‘Safety
Officers’/professionals engaged in all establishments all over
Maharashtra and especially the Safety Officers responsibility
in the matters of police cases due to some wrongful acts
done by company or factory or by
establishment/management”.
The petition, styled as a public interest litigation (PIL), is at the

instance of OHSSAI (Occupational Health, Safety,
Sustainability Association India) Foundation, through its
founder President and General Secretary.
Referring to the provisions of section 40B of the Factories Act,

1948 as well as the Maharashtra Safety Officers (Duties,
Qualification and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982, it is
claimed that the role of the Safety Officers is purely of
“advisory nature”.
Advertisement
It is further claimed that the duty of the Safety Officers is to
advise and assist the employer/factory management in the
fulfillment of the obligations, statutory or otherwise,
concerning prevention of personal injuries and maintaining a
safe working environment. At the under-construction site
crash, which happened in Pune, the safety
engineer/officer along with three others was arrested by the
Yerwada Police Station with a case of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and other charges and since then, he
has been in jail/police custody.
It is also claimed that the role of the safety officers is merely

of advisory nature, yet, in the above cited case and such other
cases of any unfortunate accident occurring in future, the
arrest of the Safety Officers could be avoided and if a
preliminary investigation is conducted and it is found that the
Safety Officer is responsible for negligence, only then he
should be arrested by the police.
Advertisement
Appearing in support of the PIL, Dr. Suresh T. Mane advocate,
refers to the statutory provisions contained in the Factories
Act as well as in the Rules of 1982 and the Maharashtra
Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of
Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 to argue
that the role of the Safety Officers being purely advisory in
nature, such Safety Officers ought not to be prosecuted for
failure on the part of the employers of such officers/factory
management to ensure safety and health at the respective
workplace.
Advertisement
It is the further contention of Dr. Mane that where number of
employees or workers are engaged, it is the duty of the
company/factory owner/establishment to have such work
executed in safe working conditions taking care of the safety
of the employees so that any accident of similar nature as the
one in Pune can be avoided.
Advertisement
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and
Justice Abhay Ahuja noted that Safety Officers are required
to be employed in every factory where more than a thousand
workers are ordinarily employed or as and when a notification
is issued under sub-section (1) of section 40B of the 1948 Act
by the State Government. In terms of the Rules of 1982,
recruitment of safety officers would be guided by Rule 5. A
process of selection is envisaged therein. The duties of Safety
Officers under the Rules of 2007 are not substantially
different from the duties as are provided in Rule 8 of the Rules
of 1982, extracted supra.
Having regard to the qualifications an aspirant for

employment on the post of Safety Officer is required to
possess, the Bench further noted that once appointed, the
incumbent would be required to advise and assist the factory
management in fulfilment of its obligations, statutory or
otherwise, concerning prevention of personal injuries and
maintenance of safe working environment. In terms of Rule
7(4) of the Rules of 1982, a Safety Officer shall be provided
with adequate technical and secretarial staff and equipment
to enable him to function efficiently.
Advertisement
From the scheme of the 1948 Act as well as the Rules framed
thereunder, namely, the Rules of 1982, the High Court have no
doubt that the Safety Officers are responsible for ensuring
precautions to avoid accidents or any untoward incidents
having the potential of causing loss to lives and limbs of
workers employed in the factories. Additionally, the
responsibilities of a Safety Officer do not end with advising
the person in-charge of the factory or the occupier to take
measures for safeguarding the lives and limbs of the workers
at risk of receiving injuries, but also to carry out safety
inspections to remove unsafe physical conditions as well as
to prevent unsafe actions by the workers. Therefore, apart
from advising the factory management to fulfil its obligations,
a Safety Officer has a positive role to ensure safe working
conditions.
In the event the employer/factory management has not acted

on his advice, a Safety Officer has a duty to investigate
dangerous occurrences and report under Rule 115 of the
Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 as well as to promote
setting up of safety committees and act as an advisor to such
committees , held the High Court.
The Court did not find the materiality of the decision in Allaiah

(supra) to the facts of the present case. The High Court of
Karnataka was not concerned with a case of failure to
discharge duty by a Safety Officer appointed under the 1948
Act. Moreover, the decision in Allaiah (supra) turns on the
contents of the charge-sheet that was filed under section
173(2) of the Cr. P.C. Finally, no law has been laid down
therein which would have application in the present case to
decide the issue raised by the petitioner.
Finally, the letter dated August 7, 2010 of the Deputy Director

of Factories and Boilers, Jajpur Road Division, Jajpur Road,
District Jajpur, Orissa is taken up for consideration by the
High Court.
First the Court noted that the federal structure of governance

of the country has to be respected. The rules framed by the
States of Orissa and Maharashtra under the 1948 Act have
not been shown to be similar.
Secondly, each State has its own peculiar problems and

solutions. What the State of Orissa in a given fact situation
directs may not be the proper solution when the State of
Maharashtra faces such a problem.
Thirdly, the letter does not go so far as to support the
contention of Dr. Mane for a preliminary inquiry to precede the
registration of an FIR.
It simply requests the police to get in touch with the Deputy

Director. The letter of the Deputy Director, therefore, cannot be
called in aid by the petitioner, the Bench observed.
The Court opined that the PIL has been instituted to protect

erring Safety Officers. It is thoroughly vexatious and
misconceived; hence, the same is dismissed by the High
Court.
The Registrar General is directed by the High Court to consult

with the Charity Commissioner and identify any
institution/organisation working for the upliftment of children
suffering from Cancer and to make over such an amount of Rs
one lakh to such institution/organisation.
Advertisement
Tags :

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Instituted To Protect Erring Saf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Instituted To Protect Erring Saf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Instituted To Protect Erring Saf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bombay High Court dismisses PIL

instituted to protect erring Safety

The petition, styled as a public interest litigation (PIL), is at the

Referring to the provisions of section 40B of the Factories Act,

It is also claimed that the role of the safety officers is merely

Having regard to the qualifications an aspirant for

In the event the employer/factory management has not acted

The Court did not find the materiality of the decision in Allaiah

Finally, the letter dated August 7, 2010 of the Deputy Director

First the Court noted that the federal structure of governance

Secondly, each State has its own peculiar problems and

It simply requests the police to get in touch with the Deputy

The Court opined that the PIL has been instituted to protect

The Registrar General is directed by the High Court to consult

You might also like