A Worker Died By Suffocation In Certified ISO Warehouse Will He Get Compensation.

If a company warehouse is certified by ISO and there is also ventilation, but a worker died due to suffocation while shifting cement bags in the warehouse. The postmortem report shows death due to suffocation, but the Inquiry Committee report shows there is no fault of the warehouse owner. So, will his dependents get compensation? If yes, why? If no, why?

Dear Mrityunjay,

There are a few things to be noted here:

a) Death of a worker happened while on duty.

b) The death happened in the course of his work. I do not know whether it can be classified as an "occupational hazard." However, it was not due to some chronic disease like heart disease, etc.

c) The post-mortem report also shows that death happened due to suffocation, and suffocation happened during the work.

Therefore, prima facie, we can infer that the death of the workman is attributable to the employment. But then why has your inquiry committee given any contrary report? Did he fail to observe any safety precautions? If yes, then what was that? What kind of safety training was he given? When was it given, and do you have evidence of the training? What about your SOPs? Did his action go against any laid-down SOP?

ISO certification has nothing to do with the workman's compensation, please note.

Have the workman's kith and kin approached you for compensation? If yes, did you turn down the compensation? I recommend you keep the labor officer of your area in the loop. Have you sent a copy of the findings of the inquiry report to the labor officer? Has he endorsed the findings?

All these questions are from a legal point of view. From the organization's culture point of view, I recommend you give his dependents the legally admissible dues. If you fail to do that, then employees' perceptions towards the company will change, and they will start looking down upon the management.

You may not pay the compensation provided that the worker had failed to observe the safety precautions or there was evident transgression of the laid-down SOP. In such a case, it may send a signal to one and all on how important the safety guidelines are and what happens when workers do not observe them.

Thanks,

Dinesh V Divekar

Dear Mritunjayskt,

I am surprised and shocked at the findings of the Enquiry Committee. It shows clearly that they are biased, or it is just a sham enquiry. Denying the dependents of compensation, who lost their breadwinner of the family, is not only illegal but also absolutely inhuman. Such demonic companies should be penalized severely. I hope in such a case the family brings up the matter in the appropriate court.

Warm regards.

There is no doubt that the kith and kin of the deceased are eligible for compensation. The enquiry committee's decision has no locus standi in the matter as the post-mortem report is the deciding factor; it is in the course of employment.

Kumar S.

Dear Mrityunjay,

This is in addition to what I wrote in my previous post. You have not mentioned how the accident happened. Did the cement bags fall on that worker? How many cement bags were stacked one over another? What is the area of the warehouse? How many rows and columns of bags were there? What was the breadth of the aisle?

DVD

Dear members,

What enquiry committee? Such committees are constituted by the management for the management. They did not cite the actual reason, just to appease the management or they were simply 'told' as to what kind of report should be given. This can happen for two reasons. One, the management does not want to pay compensation or, more likely, they are apprehensive of its legal consequences such as losing a license, etc. However, from a humanitarian point of view, not only should compensation be paid but also, if possible, a suitable job should be offered to one of his dependents.

S.K. Limaye / MBA

This is simple. The worker died in the course and scope of his duty or while doing his work, so his beneficiary/dependent is entitled to receive compensation. Something wrong happened that led to his death, that's for sure. If the committee claimed that the warehouse owner has no fault, then keep asking why it happened. An unbiased investigation should have been done to prevent the incident from happening again, which should have been the goal of the management or that committee. Receiving the compensation should no longer be a question; it is clear. If the company doesn't want to pay, then help the family file a claim to the Employee Compensation Commission or any equivalent of that, which is a requirement by labor law.

Hello,

A few things must be noted:

1) The deceased had no prior health problems, due to which there were chances of suffocation in such conditions, like asthma/respiratory problems, or any other conditions that would require the body to have more air/requirements compared to a normal person.

2) Conditions must prove that even a normal person or any person would be subjected to such suffocation in that environment. It is not an unusual or exceptional case.

3) Was there any special environmental imbalances causing the suffocation on that particular day or in the few previous days? Otherwise, he was not under suffocation.

3A) In case he had suffered before, was it brought to the attention of the management? What actions were taken? If no actions were taken, then the amount of negligence on the part of the management should be considered.

3B) Despite suffocation, if the victim failed to bring it to the management's notice.

4) Are there any previous cases of similar issues, not necessarily resulting in death but health problems due to suffocation suffered by other workers?

If the answers to all the above issues are negative, then you will not have absolute claims over compensation and damages. You can only claim compensation and not damages, but it will be at the discretion of the company. However, whatever compensation has been specified under the law is assured in any case.

Our condolences for the unfortunate event.

Absolutely, the workman is eligible for compensation. A very straightforward case. If adequate ventilation arrangements were not available, it is a significant lapse on the part of the employer. With due respect to the opinions expressed by my friends above, it is a clear violation and also criminal if attempts are made to find faults with the late workman to avoid payment of compensation.

I presume that the above case falls under EC Act 1923. If so, I invite the attention of friends to Sec 3(1)(b) of the Act, which states that the employer will be liable for compensation for the death of an employee due to an injury happening during the course and arising out of employment, even if the employee at the time of the accident was drunk, disobeying a safety order or rule, or removed or disregarded safety guard or devices.

Varghese Mathew Baseindia Consultants Trivandrum 14 (9961266966)

Hi,

Death has occurred due to suffocation. Immediately after the employee's death, the police will file an FIR, and the Director of Factories or Labor Department must receive a copy of the death report within 24 hours. Where can this inquiry committee provide a contradictory report? Any report following the death may not hold much significance in terms of compensation.

Thank you.

Very pertinent questions! I think there is nothing more to be said on this.

Dear friend,

In many cases, the death or injury sustained "in the course of employment" has resulted in suitable compensation being awarded by various courts. The attached case laws could be helpful in understanding this issue.

Kumar S.

Even assuming that the employee has a previous history of ailments like a heart problem or asthma, it would not exonerate the employer from liability to pay compensation for death. There is a nexus between his death and his employment due to the fact that the duty of carrying cement bags or the falling of cement bags could have aggravated his condition, ultimately leading to his death. Even if there is ventilation, it would not nullify the nexus between death and the nature of his work.

B. Saikumar

Mumbai

One thing that is envisaged under RC Act is that any employee who meets with an accident during the course of and arising out of his employment shall be entitled to compensation commensurate with the loss of his earning capacity, including death based on the formula given under the Act.

The internally constituted committee's report had no bearing thereon. The police and/or medical reports supersede all such reports.

Secondly, unethical dealing of such liability shall result not only in elongated litigation but also in money and man-hour, leave alone indirect loss of employee morale and productivity. Ultimately, the law enforcement agencies and judiciary sympathize with the employee. Hence, it would be desirable to comply with EC Act and pay compensation. Anyway, the company may have an insurance policy that will support the employer.

Regards

Dear Mrityunjay,

I think the certification of the company under the ISO and the contradictory report of the so-called committee giving a clean chit to the owner of the warehouse have caused your present confusion about the admissibility of the claim for compensation by the dependents of the deceased employee. The employee died of suffocation while on duty, and the cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem report also confirms this. The parameters for exempting the employer from liability mentioned in the proviso to ss(1) of Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, are not applicable to fatal accidents. Therefore, the report of the committee may not be of any help to the employer in the matter of payment of compensation other than for mitigating his criminal liability for causing death by negligence.

I do not understand why this should be a question at all. Very clear case. Worker is eligible for compensation. Rightly said by Mr. Verghese M. and others. Interesting discussion.

Mr. Umakanthan.M
Additional Commissioner of Labour (RTD)

According to you, the parameters for exempting the employer from liability mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 are not applicable to fatal accidents.

My question to you, with due respect, is: How do you say a fatal accident is not covered in the Act when it is not expressed or implied in the Act? Can you enlighten on this issue since you served as an Authority under the Act.

Dear Mr. Vivian Chandrasekar,

Thank you for your query. The proviso to ss(1) of S3 of the E.C Act, 1923 enumerates the cases in which the employer is NOT liable to pay compensation in clauses (a) and (b). Clause (a) exempts the employer from liability in respect of any injury not resulting in TOTAL or PARTIAL DISABLEMENT for a period EXCEEDING 3 DAYS; Cl (b) exempts the employer from liability for compensation in respect of any other type of injury due to an accident caused because of three reasons directly attributable to the concerned workman when its resultant effect is not death or permanent total disablement. This was what I meant to say in my previous post. I never expected that it would mean the way you mentioned. Hope my reply will satisfy you!

With regards,