Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 27 January 1995, 3 judges, 1995 AIR 922, 1995 SCC (3) 42, JT 1995 (1) 636
The Court held that the right to health and medical aid of workers, in service and after retirement, is a fundamental right under Article 21, and issued directions to asbestos industries, including health records, insurance and compensation.
Facts
In 1986 the petitioner, an accredited organisation, filed a public interest petition under Article 32 about occupational health hazards to workers in asbestos mines and industries, particularly asbestosis. The record showed about thirty mines in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan and about 74 asbestos industries in nine States, employing about 11,000 workmen in 1986. Accepting the Biswas Committee report on which the petition rested, the Central Government framed model Rule 123A under the Factories Act, and under this Court's directions the States amended their rules. The amended prayers sought directions on keeping workers' health records for 40 years, adopting the membrane filter test, compulsory insurance, lower permissible exposure limits, extension of protection to small scale units, and re-examination by the National Institute of Occupational Health of workers examined by ESI hospitals in Gujarat, with compensation. The Court reviewed the ILO Asbestos Convention, 1986 and medical literature on asbestos diseases.
Questions before the Court
- Is the right to health and medical care of a worker, during and after employment, a fundamental right under Article 21?
- Can the Court issue directions under Articles 32 and 142 to employers, including private industries, to protect workers' health?
- Can compensation be awarded in public law proceedings to workers suffering from asbestos-related disease?
What the Court held
- Life under Article 21 is more than animal existence; it includes livelihood, a better standard of life, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure. The right to health and medical aid of a worker, in service or after retirement, is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43 and 48A.
- The State, the Union or State Government, and industry, public or private, are bound to promote the health and vigour of workmen during employment and after retirement. In an appropriate case the Court will give directions to any employer, and even private persons or industry are bound by directions under Articles 32 and 142.
- Compensation in public law under Article 32 or 226 is a remedy for violation of fundamental and human rights, and sovereign immunity is no defence. As the Employees' State Insurance Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act do not cover compensation after cessation of employment, the factories are bound to compensate workmen for disease caused by the health hazards.
- All industries must keep each worker's health record for 40 years from the start of employment or 15 years after cessation, whichever is later; adopt the membrane filter test; and compulsorily insure the health of every worker. The ILO rules on safety in the use of asbestos bind the industries.
- Governments must review permissible exposure limits in line with international standards and consider covering small scale units. Inspectors of Factories, in particular in Gujarat, must send workers examined by ESI hospitals for re-examination by the National Institute of Occupational Health; each worker found affected gets Rs. one lakh from the employer within three months of certification. The petitions were allowed.
Why it matters
The judgment declares the right to health and medical care of workers, during and after employment, a fundamental right under Article 21 read with the Directive Principles, and holds that private employers as well as the State are bound by the Court's directions to protect it. It lays down detailed directions for the asbestos industry and applies public law compensation, following Rudul Sah, to occupational disease.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Therefore, we hold that right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour to a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person.”
“The State, be it Union or State government or an industry, public or private, is enjoined to take all such action which will promote health, strength and vigour of the workman during the period of employment and leisure and health even after retirement as basic essentials to live the life with health and happiness. The health and strength of the worker is an integral facet of right to life.”
“It is, therefore, settled law that in public law claim for compensation is a remedy available under Article 32 or 226 for the enforcement and protection of fundamental and human rights. The defence of sovereign immunity is inapplicable and alien to the concept of guarantee of fundamental rights.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)“In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983(3) SCR 508, it was held that this Court under Article 32 can grant compensation for the deprivation of personal liberty” (page 23)
- Follows Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)“In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985(3) SCC 545, this Court held that no person can live without the means of living i.e. means of livelihood.” (page 20)
- Follows Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1983)“In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 at 183-84, this Court held that the right to live with human dignity, enshrined in Article 21, derives its life-breath from the directive principles” (page 20)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ petition under Article 32 (number not printed in the file)
- Decided
- 27 January 1995
- Bench
- Ramaswamy, K., Ahmadi, A.M. (CJ), Punchhi, M.M.
- Opinions
- A single judgment of the Court; the file does not name its author, and the JUDIS header lists Ramaswamy, K. first. No separate opinion appears in the file.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.