In order to ascertain whether safety measures were being followed in fireworks units and related industries, and whether steps were being taken to prevent accidents, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a recent order, sought reports from the authorities concerned.
Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that every month, precious lives were being lost due to fire accidents. The people residing in Sivakasi had no other option for employment, and were dependent on fireworks units for their livelihood.
They were working in such units, fully aware of the dangers involved. Neither the government nor the employers had made sufficient arrangements to prevent accidents in fireworks industries. The government should be proactive in preventing deaths, rather than giving compensation, the court observed.
The court suo motu impleaded Virudhunagar Superintendent of Police; Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufacturers Association (TANFAMA), Sivakasi; Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur; and Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Sivakasi as respondents to a batch of petitions seeking compensation that was filed in 2015 by women who had lost their husbands in a fire accident in the G.V. Traders aluminium powder-making unit in Sivakasi in Virudhunagar district in 2014.
The court sought reports on the number of fire accidents that took place in the last five years in fireworks units and related industries, with details of the injured and the deceased and the cause of such accidents. The court also sought reports on the remedial measures taken to prevent such accidents. The Virudhunagar Collector was directed to file a report on the steps taken by the district administration and the Labour Department to sensitise fireworks companies on the need to prevent such accidents.
In the present case, the Virudhunagar Collector, in a counter-affidavit, submitted that at the relevant point of time, ₹15,000 to ₹50,000 was granted as compensation. However, the government treated the accident as a special case, and ₹1 lakh each was given to the petitioners. The employer had given ₹20,000 each to the petitioners. In addition to this, the petitioners were given employment under the TAHDCO Scheme with a sum of ₹1 lakh for doing business.
The court appointed advocate Dilip Kumar as amicus curiae in the case and posted the matter for hearing to January 24.
Published - January 10, 2024 09:06 pm IST
