Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Mangat Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondent
CRM-M No. 38779-2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 20-02-2020
Mr. J. S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lovekirat S. Chahal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG, Haryana., Mr. Manohar Lall, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2
The central legal point established is that the responsibility for providing safety measures at the workplace lies with the contractor, and in the absence of direct involvement in negligent acts, the accused cannot be held liable under Section 304-A IPC.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Safety at Workplace - Section 304-A IPC - Clause 26 of the Safety, Health & Environment (SHE) Contract - M/s Divis Infracteh Builders and Electrical Contractors vs State of Maharashtra
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, sought to quash an FIR registered under Section 304-A IPC, relating to the death of two workers employed by a contractor due to suffocation while working in hazardous conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the responsibility for providing safety measures and personal protective equipment to the workers lay with the contractor, not the petitioner. The court also noted that the matter had been amicably settled with compensation paid to the legal heirs of the deceased workers.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allocation of responsibility for safety at the workplace, the liability of the petitioner, and the settlement reached with the legal heirs of the deceased workers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Clause 26 of the Safety, Health & Environment (SHE) Contract to establish the responsibility of the contractor for providing safety measures. It also referenced the judgment in M/s Divis Infracteh Builders and Electrical Contractors vs State of Maharashtra to support the quashing of the FIR under Section 304-A IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, subject to the additional compensation being paid by M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited to the legal heirs of the deceased workers.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.79 dated 18.02.2017, registered under Section 304-A IPC at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
2. On 23.10.2017, the following order was passed:
"...Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an employee of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (in short 'MSIL') and is working as an Assistant Manager-cum-Liason Officer. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in January, 2011 vide agreement (Annexure P3) with M/s. R.R. Facilities Private Limited, it was agreed that the aforesaid agency will provide various works as per the agreement and as per Clause 24 of the agreement, the Contractor and Sub-Contractor personnel be required to comply permit to work system. It is essential that contractor personnel read, understand and sign to that effect and carry out any conditions or precautions laid down in work permits, if any doubts exist, guidance from the MSIL Representative shall be obtained. Examples of high risk activities are not limited to:-
a) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
c) Entry into confined spaces.
It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that as per Clause 26, it was the duty of the Contractor to provide the equipments for working in hazardous condition, identified and shall maintain the equipments in a professional manner. Clause 26 of the agreement is reproduced as under:-
"Clause 26.0 Personal Protective Equipment. The Contractor shall provide PPE of an approved type appropriate to the work hazards identified and shall maintain this equipment in a professional manner as indicated by applicable legal and industrial standards. The Contractor shall keep up to date records of all the said equipment. The Contractor shall remove from the site any worker who consistently refuses to wear the appropriate personal protective equipment. The PPEs and safety appliances provided by the contractor shall be of the standard as prescribed by Bureau of India Standards (BIS) or equivalent standard. All construction workers should be provided with high visibility jackets with reflective tapes confirming to the requirement specified under BS EN 471:1994. The contractor shall at all time maintain a minimum of 10% spare PPEs and safety appliances and maintain proper record.
The colour coding of safety Helmets shall conform to the following:-
Yellow Technician/Workman
White Managers
Blue Supervisor
Red Fire Personnel
Green Safety Stewards
All helmets shall also display name of the company logo for easy identification. Specialization stickers on the helmet (e.g., Forklift driver, crane drive, fire trained, first aid trained, etc.) as per MSIL standards."
It is further submitted that the FIR (Annexure P7) was got registered by Rakesh who is the Supervisor of M/s. R.R. Facilities Private Limited with the allegation that on 18.02.2017, 02 persons namely Sumit and Sonu employed by M/s. R.R. Facilities Private Limited while clearing the safety tank died due to suffocation. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot and it was not his job to supervise the working of M/s. R.R. Facilities Private Limited as it was within the domain of M/s. R.R. Facilities Private Limited to look after the safety arrangements of its employees. It is further submitted that both the deceased namely Sumit and Sonu were never employed by MSIL and were admittedly employees of M/s. R.R. Facilities Private Limited. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact negligence, if any, was on the part of M/s. R.R. Facilities Private Limited and its employees including the complainant and after registration of the FIR, the petitioner has given a detailed complaint (Annexure P8) on 20.03.2017 in which, in para 3 it has been specifically brought to the notice of the prosecution agency th
