DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Taskinuddin & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. - Resopndent
W.P. (C) 5812/2011
Decided On : 11-09-2013
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 4A r/w 8(i) - Article 21, 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ petition - Compensation - Death - Injuries - Fire incident - Fire broke out in the factory - Near relatives of petitioner nos. 1 to 7 died, and petitioner no 8 was injured - At the time of incident they were working in the factory premises of respondent no 2 - Occurrence has been recorded in the FIR - Respondent No.2 has denied his negligence and the nature of activity allegedly found in the premises - Respondent No.2 has also denied the cause of the fire and the relationship of workmen and employer - Factory was being run in an illegal manner in a "low rise residential building" - Neither permission from Respondent No.1 to run the unit has not been claimed nor requisite municipal licenses or fire clearances has been taken - Respondent no 1 has been utterly negligent in discharging its statutory obligations and in ensuring that the citizen's fundamental rights - Incident has occurred due to the use and presence of a highly inflammable liquid - Cause of fire in the premises of respondent no.2 is of no relevance to fix the liability of the respondents - Strict liability focuses on the nature of the defendants activities, rather than on the way in which it is carried out - Held, respondents would be liable, irrespective of their being/not being any negligence.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners suitable amount of compensation with interest, for loss of lives and injuries suffered in a tragic fire incident in a factory/business premises of respondent No.2.
2. An unfortunate fire incident took place on 25.01.2011 in the premises of M/s Amazing Creation Garment Export Factory at Tughlakabad area of South Delhi, where 14 workmen died and 5 other workmen were injured. The FIR of the said incident was registered on 26.01.2011 with PS Govindpuri, u/s 287,337,338,304-A IPC as FIR No 23/2011.
3. Petitioner no 1 is the father of the deceased workman Amir Siddiqui, petitioner no 2 is the husband of the deceased workman Lalita Devi, petitioner no 3 is the father of deceased workman Shabbo, petitioner no 4 is the father of the deceased workman Mohd. Nizamuddin, petitioner no 5 is the husband of deceased workman Suman Devi, petitioner no 6 is the father of the deceased workman Mohd. Rais, petitioner no 7 is the father of the deceased workman Alam, and petitioner no 8 is the injured workman Rizwan in person. The deceased workmen along with petitioner no 8 were working as “helper” with M/s Amazing Creation, dealing in the manufacture and packing of garments and export of various type of garments – according to the petitioners and, dealing in dry cleaning, according to respondent No.2. According to the petitioners, the duties performed by the workmen included the acts of thread cutting, ironing, and chemical washing of the garments for export.
4. The respondent no 1 is the State (NCT of Delhi) and respondent no 2 is the owner of the factory, M/S Amazing Creations Co, Mr. Shamim Khan.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that on the fateful day of the fire accident, all the deceased workmen and the injured workmen were working on the fifth floor of the factory, when suddenly the boiler in the hall area of the said floor burst, resulting into a massive fire. Due to highly inflammable liquid being stored near the boiler, the fire spread rapidly - engulfing the area where the workers had been working. The petitioners further allege that due to the narrow staircase, and placement of generator near the staircase, the workmen could not escape from the fire. Moreover, the walls and roof of the floor were made of fibre sheet, which aggravated the fire, trapping all the workmen in its embrace. The petitioners claim that the loss of life and injuries to the injured has resulted in severe impairment of the fundamental right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the said accident took place due to the acts and omissions of the respondents.
6. Ld Counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondent no 1 i.e the State, NCT of Delhi has miserably failed to discharge their statutory duties by not preventing the factory owner, respondent no 2 from running the said factory in flagrant violation of all statutory laws relating to fire prevention, building bye laws, labour laws etc which resulted into the deaths and injury of the workmen.
7. Ld counsel for the petitioners further submit that even after the fire incident, the various agencies of respondent no 1 have been lackadaisical in their attitude to grant compensation for the incident, or initiate appropriate and prompt action against respondent no 2.and have, instead, been passing the buck to each other.
8. The petitioners’ grievance is that they have been running from pillar to post to secure compensation from respondent no 1 and its agencies, but to no avail. The petitioners first approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister Lt. Governor of Delhi vide letter dated 11.03.2011 which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Labour, (So
All India Lawyers’ Union (Delhi Unit) v. Union of India AIR 1999 Del 120 :1999 (48) DRJ 453(DB)
Chob Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr 192 (2012) DLT 100
D.K Basu v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 416
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14
Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. AIR 1966 SC 81
General manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Gunwant Kaur & Ors. v. Municipal Committee Bhatinda & Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 769
Harinder Kaur v. Add. District and Sessions Judge and Ors 2012 (131) DRJ 63
Irani v. State of Madras 1962-(2) SCR 169 : AIR 1961 SC 1731
Jaipur Golden Gas Victim Association v. Union of India [164 (2009) DLT 346 DB]
Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 1
Kamla Devi v. Government of NCT of Delhi 114 (2004) DLT 57 : 2005 ACJ 216
M.C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 1987 (1) SCC 395
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 : (1993) 2 SCC 746
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Ram Prasad Varma & Ors 2009(2) SCC 712
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. V.S. Vijay Kumar Mittal 2008 ACJ 1300
Raj Kumar v. Union of India 125 (2005) DLT 653
Ram Kishore and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2007 VII AD (Delhi) 441
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141 : (1983) 3 SCR 508
S. Radhika Sameena v. S.H.O. Habbenagar Police Station
S.P.S Rathore v. State of Haryana (2005) 10 SCC 1
Sandhu Varahala Babu and Ors v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Sarla Verma amd Ors v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 2009 (110) DRJ 609 [SC]
Shri Chand v. Chief Secretary (112) 2004 DLT 37
Shyama Devi v. GNCTD (1999) IAD (Cr) Delhi 549 : 1999 (49) DRJ 86(DB)
Sube Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2006 SC 1117
T.C. Basappa v. Nagappa 1955 1 SCR 250 : AIR 1954 SC 440
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Sumathi and Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 543
U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors. 1999 1 SCC 741
Varinder Prased v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd and Others 2012 (127) DRJ 630
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.