Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ, D.N. RAY, J.
Peoples Training and Research Centre and Others - Appellants
Versus
The State of Gujarat and Others - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 4137 of 2024
Decided On : 01-08-2025
(A) Directions by Apex Court for providing financial assistance to kins of deceased due to Silicosis - Gujarat’s non-compliance with prior directives indicated due to delays and inadequate measures for claim processing. (Paras 1-21)
(B) Government Resolutions - Issues with the timelines and conditions for application submissions for financial assistance to self-employed workers highlighted. (Paras 5-6)
(C) Rehabilitation Policy - Lack of policy for rehabilitation of Silicosis-affected workers discussed and criticized. (Paras 13-16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners represent families of workers who died from Silicosis and challenge the Gujarat Government's financial assistance policy, arguing inadequacies and delays in compliance with previous court directives.
Findings of Court:
The court directed modifications to the existing policy to ensure compliance with the Apex Court's orders, including establishing a rehabilitation framework and addressing the issue of claim rejections based on arbitrary timelines.
Issues: The court addressed whether the Gujarat Government's policies conformed to earlier Supreme Court directives on compensation and rehabilitation for Silicosis victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found significant delays in implementation of the Apex Court's mandates and assessed the arbitrary nature of application timelines, which must accommodate the socio-economic realities of the affected individuals.
Result: The court ordered the Gujarat Government to revise its policy to comply with Supreme Court directives on Silicosis compensation and rehabilitation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. government's financial assistance framework for silicosis victims (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. analysis of applicants' claims and processing (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. critique of application timelines and lack of rehabilitation policy (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. apex court's directions on silicosis compensation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. claim processing delays and response deficiencies (Para 15 , 18) |
| 6. requirement for government policy revisions in line with apex court directives (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. next steps for compliance and further hearings (Para 21) |
ORDER :
1. Pursuant to the order dated 05.05.2025 passed in the present petition, an affidavit dated 02.07.2025 filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 namely the Chief Labour Commissioner, State of Gujarat, has been placed before us to bring on record the Government resolutions issued by the Labour and Employement Department, Government of Gujarat, from time to time, in the matter of providing financial assistance to self-employed unorganized workers, who have died due to ‘Silicosis’.
2. The first four Government resolutions are dated 04.01.2014, 05.09.2014, 09.03.2015 and 29.05.2015, which have been substituted vide Government resolution dated 13.08.2015, wherein benefits of the scheme of financial assistance were made effective from 01.01.2006.
3. It is stated in the aforesaid affidavit that pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 11.04.2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 110 of 2006 [ People’s Right and Social Research Center and Ors. Vs. Union of India ], the Principal Secretary, Gujarat Rural Workers Welfare Board, Gandhinagar sent a proposal dated 30.06.2022 to the Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Gandhinagar to frame a policy to provide financial assistance of Rs.4 Lacs to the next of kin of the deceased. The copy of the said proposal is brought on record as Annexure ‘5’. However, the Government resolution to enhance the financial assistance in compliance of the decision of the Apex Court dated 11.04.2017, noted hereinabove, has been issued only on 11.03.2024.
4. From the description of the financial assistance provided to the petitioner Nos.2 to 20, who are represented in the representative capacity by petitioner No.1, in a table given in paragraph No. ‘3’ of the said affidavit, it can be seen that:-
| S. No. | Petitioner No. | Applicant name and application date | Application approved/rejected/Returned date | Remarks |
| 1. | 2. | Champaben Srimali (Wife) 31.07.2023 04.07.2024 | Rejected 30.09.2023 13.08.2024 | Had applied beyond the limitation period. |
| 2. | 3. | Hansaben Parmar (Wife) 06.02.2023 | Approved 15.09.2023 | Rs.1,00,000 credited to next of kin bank account. |
| 3. | 4. | Vimalaben Chavda (Wife) 13.12.2022 | Approved 05.07.2023. | Rs.1,00,000 credited to next of kin bank account. |
| 4. | 5. | Hansaben Chikhaliya (Wife) 31.08.2020 | Approved 30.03.2021. | Rs.1,00,000 credited to next of kin bank account. |
| 5. | 6. | Somiben Solanki | Approved 25.09.2024 | Rs.1,00,000 credited to next of kin bank account. |
| 6. | 7. | Vahidunisha Saiyed (Mother) 21.09.22 | Rejected 10.01.2023 | Had applied beyond the limitation period. |
| 7. | 8. | MumtazbibiDiwan (Wife) 26.05.23 | Approved 24.11.2023 | Rs.1,00,000 credited to next of kin bank account. |
| 8. | 9. | AsifbhaiMalek (Son) 21.04.15 | Approved 05.06.2017 | Rs.1,00,000 credited to next of kin bank account. |
| 9. | 10. | Tavakkalhussain Shaikh (Husband) 09.09.16 | Approved 05.06.2017 | Rs.1,00,000 credited to next of kin bank account. |
| 10. | 11. | Puniben Dengda (Wife) | - | Application not received |
| 11. | 12. | Prafullaben Beladiya (Wife) | - | Application not received |
| 12. | 13. | LaxmibenDabhi (Wife) 19.03.2024 | Rejected 27.06.2024 | Had applied beyond the limitation period. |
| 13. | 14. | Kalpanaben Upadhyay (Wife) | - | Application not received |
| 14. | 15. | Parvatiben Solanki (Wife) | - | Application not received |
| 15. | 16. | Narayanbhai Dharodiya (Husband) | - | Application not received |
| 16. | 17. | Vinaben Gupta (wife) 20.05.2024 | - | Vide letter 31.07.2024, it was requested to submit supporting documents. |
| 17. | 18. | Pankajkumar Kher | Not Considered | Applicant had claimed that he was affected with silicosis. No pro |
State policies must comply with Supreme Court directions to provide timely financial assistance and rehabilitation for workers affected by Silicosis.
The court established that the right to health and safety at the workplace is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the state has an obligation to implement effective measures....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
