Judgement

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution and the petitioners are the Bharat Electronics Employees Union and the Secretary of that Union. Bharat Electronics Limited is a public sector undertaking. The company has its factory at Ghaziabad and manufactures electronic components and equipment including integrated circuits, TV picture tubes and sophisticated Radars used by the countrys defence establishments. The respondent No. 1 has entered into technical collaboration with a French firm, TCSF. Respondent No. 2 is the competent authority appointed under the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 framed under the Atomic Energy Act by the Central Government. This writ application is confined to employees working in the transmitter assembly room of the factory. The petitioners have alleged that in course of their employment those of the employees who are made to work in the transmitter assembly room are exposed to the baneful effects of X-ray radiation. The ill effects of such exposure has been detailed in the writ petition. They have alleged that respondent No. 1 has not been following the rules and no care and attention has been devoted to the safety and protection of the employees in such a sensitive place. They have further asked for a declaration that the failure of the respondents to provide adequate protection and adopt safety procedure has resulted in a violation of the transmitter assembly workers fundamental rights and they have become entitled to compensation. Several other reliefs were prayed for. This Court on May 5, 1986 directed medical examination of 68 workers who complained of exposure to X-ray radiation by the Indian Council of Medical Research and when it was reported that there was no facility for appropriate examination at that place, on July 21, 1986, the Court directed those 68 workers to be examined in convenient batches by the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as BARC). The said BARC also carried on a survey relating to radiological protection within respondent No. 1s installation and sent an interim report and later a detailed report has also been received. The BARC has also made certain suggestions for future protection of the workers from exposure to radiation.

2. The Associate Director of Radiological Group in the BARC has filed an affidavit. Similarly respondent No. 1 through Wg. Comdr. K. S. Randhawa has also filed an affidavit. The affidavit of the Associate Director has been confined to the effect of exposure and an attempt has been made to provide certain scientific data related thereto. In the affidavit of Wg. Comdr. K. S. Randhawa, steps taken and safety measures adopted at the factory of respondent No. 1 have been indicated. The Associate Director filed a second affidavit along with the final report. The details of medical examination have also been placed on record. Respondent No. 1 has filed written submissions which have taken note of at the hearing of this writ petition.

3. The result of medical examination carried out shows that there is no clear proof of any injury or ill effect on the workers following the alleged exposure. It is, however, not disputed on either side that the evil effects take time to manifest and it is possible that even though no adverse effect is noticed now, on account of the exposure already suffered, the consequences may appear later. Mr. Nariman, appearing for the employer - respondent No. 1 - does not disown the responsibility to compensate the workmen in the event of proof of ill effects directly flowing out of employment at a future date. The only way in which this aspect of the demand can be dealt with is to say that as and when any related ill effect is manifested, the aggrieved workman or workmen would be entitled to lodge claim for compensation but as the matter stands no order for compensation at this stage is warranted. Safety rules have been framed and respondent No. I has undertaken before us that