Contempt of court - failure to create a new post as per the orders - Contempt petition for implementation of orders - Apex court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of High court -and held that No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law - since the High court not directed to create a superannuation post in main writ order , now can not supplement the same by contempt of court = SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ... APPELLANT (S) ONGC & ORS. VERSUS M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS. ... RESPONDENT (S) = 2014 ( February Part )judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41199

Contempt of court - failure to create a new post as per the orders - Contempt petition for implementation of orders - Apex court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of High court -and held that No order or direction supplemental to what has been  already  expressed  should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the  domain  of  the
contempt law - since the High court not directed to create a superannuation post in main writ order , now can not supplement the same by contempt of court =
By  a notification dated 08.09.1994 issued under Section  10(1)  of  the  Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 employment  of  contract  labour in various works in the Corporation, including the work of Radio  Operators,was prohibited. =
Writ allowed 
The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators  with  effect  from  8.9.1994  on  the  basis  of  the
      abolition of contract labour and as per the recommendations dated 4-6-
      1999 of the Ministry of  Petroleum  and  Natural  Gas,  Government  of
      India, to the first respondent  and  the  approval  of  the  competent
      authority as communicated in the fax dated 23-9-1999 to the third  and
      fourth respondents with all monetary benefits and all other  attendant
      benefits.  If for any reason, there is no cadre  of  Marine  Assistant
      Radio Operator or there are no sufficient posts are available  in  the
      cadre of Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators  to  accommodate  all  the
      petitioners, the respondents are directed to give “pay protection”  to
      the petitioners and sanction them the scale of pay  as  applicable  to
      the Marine Assistant Radio Operators as recommended by the Ministry of
      Petroleum and Natural Gas.”
For non implementation - contempt filed =

 whether there has been  any  disobedience  or willful violation of the same.  =

Decided issues cannot be reopened;  nor  the plea of equities can be considered.  
Courts  must  also  ensure  that  while
considering a contempt plea the  power  available  to  the  Court  in  other
corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is  not  trenched  upon.   
No order or direction supplemental to what has been  already  expressed  should
be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the  domain  of  the
contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate  in  other  jurisdictions
vested in the Court, as noticed above.  =   

  Applying the above settled principles to the case  before  us,  it  is
clear that the direction of the High Court  for  creation  of  supernumerary
posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator cannot be countenanced.  
 Not  only the Courts must act with utmost restraint before  compelling  the  executive
to create additional posts, the  impugned  direction  virtually  amounts  to
supplementing the directions contained in the order of the High Court  dated
02.8.2006.  
The alterative direction i.e. to grant parity of pay could  very
well have been occasioned by the stand taken by the Corporation with  regard
to the necessity of keeping in existence the cadre itself  in  view  of  the
operational needs of the Corporation.  
If despite the specific  stand  taken
by the Corporation in this regard the High Court was of the  view  that  the
respondents should be absorbed as Marine Assistant  Radio  Operator  nothing
prevented the High  Court  from  issuing  a  specific  direction  to  create
supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator.  The  same  was  not
done.  
If that be so, the direction to create  supernumerary  posts  at  the
stage of exercise of the contempt jurisdiction has to be  understood  to  be
an addition to the initial order passed in the Writ Petition.  
The  argument
that such a direction is implicit in the  order  dated  02.08.2006  is  self
defeating.  
Neither, is  such  a  course  of  action  open  to  balance  the
equities, i.e. not to foreclose the promotional avenues of the  petitioners,
as vehemently urged by Shri Rao.  
The issue is one of jurisdiction  and  not of justification.  
Whether the direction issued would be  justified  by  way
of review or in exercise of any other jurisdiction is an  aspect  that  does
not concern us in the present  case.  Of  relevance  is  the  fact  that  an
alternative direction had been issued by the High Court by its  order  dated
02.08.2006  and  the  appellants,  as  officers  of  the  Corporation,  have
complied with the same.  They cannot  be,  therefore,   understood  to  have
acted in willful disobedience of the said order of  the  Court.    
All  that
was required in terms of the second direction having been complied  with  by
the appellants, we are of the view that the order  dated  02.08.2006  passed
in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 stands  duly  implemented.  
Consequently,  we  set
aside the Order dated 19.01.2012 passed in  Contempt  Petition  No.  161  of
2010, as well as the impugned order  dated  11.07.2012  passed  in  Contempt
Appeal No.2 of 2012 and allow the present appeal.

2014 ( February Part )judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41199
P SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
                        REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL  NO.1816 OF 2014
                 Special Leave Petition (C) NO.23272 OF 2012


SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD.         ...    APPELLANT (S)
ONGC & ORS.

                                   VERSUS

M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS.           ...  RESPONDENT (S)



                               J U D G M E N T


RANJAN GOGOI, J.


1.    Leave granted.

2.     Aggrieved by a direction of the Madras High Court in exercise of  its
contempt jurisdiction to create supernumerary posts, this  appeal  has  been
filed by the respondents in the contempt proceeding.

3.    Shorn off unnecessary  details  the  core  facts  that  would  need  a
recital are enumerated hereinbelow.

      The respondents in the present appeal were engaged as Radio  Operators
on contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation  Ltd.  (hereinafter
referred to as “the Corporation”), a Public Sector Undertaking, inter  alia,
engaged in on-shore and off-shore oil and natural  gas  exploration.   By  a
notification dated 08.09.1994 issued under Section  10(1)  of  the  Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 employment  of  contract  labour
in various works in the Corporation, including the work of Radio  Operators,
was prohibited.  A Writ  Petition  bearing  No.  15211  of  1991  seeking  a
direction to the Corporation to treat the contract Radio  Operators  at  par
with the regular Marine Assistant Radio Operators  was  pending  before  the
High Court at that point of time.  Subsequently, the union  representing  56
number of contract employees engaged as Radio Operators  instituted  another
Writ Petition i.e. W.P. No. 1178 of 1996 seeking the same relief.

4.    In Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs. United Labour  Union
and Others[1] this Court took the  view  that  upon  abolition  of  contract
labour the persons engaged on contract basis became  the  employees  of  the
principal employer and hence entitled to regularization under the  principal
employer.
The said  view  has  been  subsequently  dissented  from,  though
prospectively, in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.  Vs.  National  Union
Waterfront Workers & Ors.[2].
Following the decision of this Court  in  Air
India Statutory Corporation and  Others  (supra)  the  writ  petitions  were
allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court  by  Order  dated
29.01.1997.  
The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Corporation against  the
said order was dismissed.  The matter was carried to this  Court  in  S.L.P.
(Civil) No.20951 of 1997 which was disposed on 12.1.1998 with the  following
operative direction.

      “Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  on
      behalf of the petitioner states that those of the 56 workmen  who  are
      found to be qualified in terms of the appropriate regulations,  as  in
      force at the relevant time, shall be absorbed as contemplated  by  the
      judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation & Ors. vs.  United  Labour
      Union & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 377.  In view of this statement the SLP does
      not survive and is disposed of.”


5.          Following the aforesaid order  of  this  Court  in  the  special
leave petition the respondents herein  were  absorbed  as  “Junior  Helpers”
with effect from 29.1.1997 by an order dated 2.4.1998.  Their pay was  fixed
at the bottom of the basic pay of Class IV  employees  of  the  Corporation.
It may be noticed, at this stage, that the respondents  being  employees  of
the  Southern  Region  of  the  Corporation  were  posted  at  Karaikal  and
Rajamundry stations.

6.    It  appears  that  thereafter  a  Committee  was  constituted  by  the
Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas which recommended that  the  Corporation
is bound to absorb all the contract Radio Operators who  had  the  requisite
qualification in the post of Marine Assistant Radio  Operators  with  effect
from 8.9.1994 and in the pay  scale  applicable  to  the  said  post  as  on
8.9.1994.

7.    As the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee was not  being  given
effect to, the present respondents instituted another proceeding before  the
High Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 21518 of  2000  seeking  a  direction  for
their absorption as  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operators  with  effect  from
8.9.1994.

      Specifically, it must be taken note of  that  in  the  aforesaid  writ
proceeding the Corporation had, inter alia,  contended  that  there  was  no
requirement of Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators  in  the  Southern  Region
Business Centre (SRBC) or other regions of the Corporation as there were  no
adequate off-shore operations.  It was also contended  that  on  account  of
the upgraded technology available,  there  is  also  no  necessity  for  the
service of a Radio Operator as with the advancement of technology the  users
themselves were in a position to operate the system without  the  assistance
of an operator.

8.    By order dated 2.8.2006 the writ petition was  disposed  of  with  the
following findings and operative directions:

      "32.  Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
      case in the light of the report of the committee, recommendation  made
      by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the judgment  of  the
      Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation case, cited supra,  I
      am of the considered view that the absorption of  the  petitioners  by
      the respondent corporation as Junior Helpers with the pay of Rs.2,282/-
       old basic bottom of Class IV  cadre  was  not  fair  and  proper  and
      certainly not in strict compliance of the  undertaking  given  by  the
      respondent corporation before the Supreme Court.  On the other hand, I
      am of the considered view that the  petitioners  are  entitled  to  be
      absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio Operators.

      33.   In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for.   The
      respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant
      Radio Operators  with  effect  from  8.9.1994  on  the  basis  of  the
      abolition of contract labour and as per the recommendations dated 4-6-
      1999 of the Ministry of  Petroleum  and  Natural  Gas,  Government  of
      India, to the first respondent  and  the  approval  of  the  competent
      authority as communicated in the fax dated 23-9-1999 to the third  and
      fourth respondents with all monetary benefits and all other  attendant
      benefits.  If for any reason, there is no cadre  of  Marine  Assistant
      Radio Operator or there are no sufficient posts are available  in  the
      cadre of Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators  to  accommodate  all  the
      petitioners, the respondents are directed to give “pay protection”  to
      the petitioners and sanction them the scale of pay  as  applicable  to
      the Marine Assistant Radio Operators as recommended by the Ministry of
      Petroleum and Natural Gas.”



9.    The aforesaid order dated 2.8.2006 was challenged by  the  Corporation
in Writ Appeal No. 1290 of 2006 which was dismissed  on  19.12.2006  with  a
direction to the Corporation to implement the order of  the  learned  Single
Judge dated 2.8.2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of  receipt
of a copy of the order.  Two other writ petitions i.e. W.P.  Nos.  27500  of
2006 and 27529 of 2006 seeking similar relief(s)  were  also  allowed  by  a
separate order of the learned Single Judge dated  4.4.2007.   The  aforesaid
orders were challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.  765  of  2008
and 766-767 of 2008 which were heard alongwith  Transfer  Petition  (C)  No.
889 of 2007 which was filed by similarly situated persons.  By  order  dated
30.10.2009 all the civil appeals and the transfer  petition  were  dismissed
by this Court with the following directions :

      “We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf  of  the
      parties.

            Learned counsel appearing for  the  parties  have  taken  us  to
      various documents and pleadings.  On consideration of the totality  of
      the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, no case  has
      been  made  out  for  our   interference   under   our   extraordinary
      jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution  of  India.   These
      appeals are accordingly dismissed.

            However, as prayed for by the learned senior  counsel  appearing
      on behalf of the appellants, we direct the appellant Oil & Natural Gas
      Corporation to implement the orders within three months.

            Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 889 of 2007

            In view  of  our  order  passed  in  the  Civil  Appeals  above-
      mentioned, no orders are necessary  in  the  transfer  petition.   The
      transfer petition is disposed of.”



10.   Alleging  non-implementation  and  disobedience  of  the  order  dated
2.8.2006 passed in W.P. No.  21518  of  2000  as  affirmed  by  order  dated
19.12.2006 in Writ Appeal No.  1290  of  2006  and  order  dated  30.10.2009
passed in Civil Appeal No.765 of 2008, Contempt  Petition  (C)  No.  161  of
2010 was filed before the High Court  wherein  the  impugned  direction  for
creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator was  made
by the order dated 19.1.2012.   The  said  order  has  been  affirmed  by  a
Division Bench of the High Court by  the  impugned  order  dated  11.7.2002.
Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

11.   At this stage, it may be necessary to take note of two other  Contempt
Petition Nos. 141 of 2010 and 343 of 2010 which had been instituted  in  the
High Court against the similar order dated 4.4.2007 passed in Writ  Petition
Nos. 27500 and 27529 of 2006 which order had  also  been  affirmed  by  this
Court in the connected civil appeals i.e. Civil Appeal Nos.766-767 of  2008,
as already noticed.  Regard must also be had to Contempt  Petition  (C)  No.
130 of 2010 filed  before  this  Court  by  similarly  situated  persons  in
respect of the order dated 30.10.2009 passed in Transfer  Petition  (C)  No.
889 of 2007.

12.   Insofar as Contempt  Petition  (C)  Nos.  141  and  343  of  2010  are
concerned, the same has been dismissed by the High Court by its order  dated
31.8.2010 holding that no case  of  commission  of  contempt  is  made  out.
Contempt Petition No. 130 of 2010  before  this  Court  was  ordered  to  be
closed in view of the averments made in an affidavit  dated  9.3.2011  filed
on behalf of the Corporation.  Paras 6 and 7 of  the  said  affidavit  would
require to be taken note of and are being extracted below.

      “6.   I say that since there  is  no  vacant  post  in  the  cadre  of
      Assistant Marine Radio Operator  in  the  Southern  Region  (to  which
      region the Respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.  765-767  of  2008  before
      this Hon’ble Court belonged and to which region the Petitioners in the
      present Contempt Petition belong) and,  no  vacancy  in  the  post  of
      Assistant Marine Radio Operator in  the  Southern  Region  has  arisen
      after the order and judgment dated 2.8.2006  of the Ld.  Single  Judge
      in Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000, the respondents in the said Appeal
      could not be accommodated  in  the  post  of  Assistant  Marine  Radio
      Operator.  Consequently, until such vacancies arise and, in accordance
      with the direction issued by the Ld. Single Judge of  the  High  Court
      (and upheld by this Hon’ble Court), Respondent No. 1took the following
      steps :

           (i)   deployed the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765/2008, who
                 formed a separate protected class, as Supernumerary Helpers
                 in the scale of pay applicable to  Assistant  Marine  Radio
                 Operators, so that they are not rendered idle.

           (ii)  gave “pay protection” to the said respondents for the  pay
                 drawn by Assistant Marine Radio Operator from the  date  of
                 their absorption, i.e. 08.09.1994.

           (iii) paid them the difference between the “protected  pay”  and
                 the pay previously drawn by them as Junior Helpers from the
                 date of their absorption on 08.09.1994.



      7.    I say that even as on date there is no vacancy in  the  post  of
      Assistant Marine Radio Operator (Southern Region).  However, since the
      Petitioners  herein  have  sought  to  be  treated  at  par  with  the
      Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765  of  2008,  Respondent  No.  1  is
      prepared to, in order to give a quietus to the matter  extend  to  the
      Petitioners the same treatment and benefits aforesaid extended to  the
      Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765 of 2008 with effect from the  date
      of their absorption i.e. with  effect  from  18.2.1998,  as  has  been
      prayed for by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition filed  by  them  in
      the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh.”


13.   The question that arises in the present appeal,  in  the  backdrop  of
the facts noted above, is whether the appellants who  are  the  officers  of
the Corporation and had complied with the  alternative  direction  contained
in the order dated 2.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.  21518  of  2000
would still be liable for commission of contempt and the only way  in  which
the appellants can purge themselves of the contempt allegedly  committed  is
by creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators.   An
answer to the above question centres around the contours  of  the  power  of
the Court while exercising its contempt jurisdiction.

14.   We have heard Shri Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney  General  for
the  appellants  and  Shri  P.P.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel   for   the
respondents.

15.   The learned Attorney General has urged that the question of  the  very
necessity  of  having/continuing  the  posts  of  Marine   Assistant   Radio
Operators in the Corporation was a live issue in Writ Petition No. 21518  of
2000 as the Corporation had contended  that  the  work  requirement  of  the
Corporation did not justify the continuation of the post  in  the  cadre  of
Marine Assistant Radio  Operators,  particularly,  in  the  SRCB  where  the
Corporation was not engaged in any off-shore operation.  It  is  urged  that
in the light of the stand taken by the Corporation,  the  option/alternative
direction of granting parity of pay to the respondents was  issued.   It  is
not in dispute that the Corporation had complied with  the  said  direction.
In a situation where the operational requirements  of  the  Corporation  did
not justify the retention of the posts of Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators
any further, its officers cannot be faulted for not  creating  supernumerary
posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators  and  instead  creating  posts  of
Junior Helpers to accommodate the respondents  and  thereafter  giving  them
protection/parity of pay in terms of  the  option  granted   by   the   High
Court.   The  learned Attorney  has further submitted that  there  being  no
direction for creation of posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators  in  the
order dated 2.8.2006 it was beyond the power of the learned  Judge,  hearing
the Contempt Petition, to issue such a direction.   The  said  error,  being
apparent, ought to have been corrected in the appeal filed before  the  High
Court. The order of the Division  Bench  dated  11.7.2012  impugned  in  the
present appeal is, therefore, open to interference in the present appeal.

14.   On the other hand Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing  for
the respondents has contended that an  obligation  to  create  supernumerary
posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator is mandated by the  very  terms  of
the Order dated 02.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000.   Shri
Rao has contended that when supernumerary posts of Junior Helpers have  been
created and parity of pay with the  higher  post  has  been  granted  it  is
difficult to conceive why supernumerary  posts  of  Marine  Assistant  Radio
Operator were not created in order to fully comply with  the  Order  of  the
High Court.  It is also pointed out that it is evident from  the  provisions
of  the  relevant  Regulations  governing  the  service  conditions  of  the
respondents  i.e.  Oil  and  Natural  Gas  Corporation  Ltd.  i.e.  Modified
Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1980, that had the  respondents  been
absorbed  as  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operators  they  would  have  earned
promotions under the Regulations which avenues stand  closed  due  to  their
absorption in the post of Junior Helper.  Shri Rao has also referred to  the
correspondence  exchanged  between  the  Corporation  and  the  Ministry  of
Petroleum and Natural Gas,  Government  of  India,  which  is  available  on
record, to show that there existed/exists a cadre of Marine Assistant  Radio
Operator and the strength of the cadre  depends  on  the  necessity  of  the
operations of the Corporation.  The cadre strength is flexible depending  on
the job requirement, it is urged.  Shri Rao, therefore, has  contended  that
the action taken by the appellants in purported compliance  of  the  Court’s
Order dated 02.08.2006 would still make them liable for contempt  which  can
be purged only by creation of posts of Marine Assistant Radio  Operator,  as
directed by the High Court.

15.   The power vested in the High Courts as well as this  Court  to  punish
for  contempt  is  a  special  and  rare  power  available  both  under  the
Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
It is  a  drastic
power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of  the  individual
charged with commission of contempt.
The very nature of the power  casts  a
sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with  the  greatest  of  care
and caution.
This is also necessary as, more often than  not,  adjudication
of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination  of  the  sweep,
meaning and effect  of  the  order  in  respect  of  which  disobedience  is
alleged.  
Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of  the
order which is alleged to have been flouted or  enter  into  questions  that
have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the  order  violation
of which is alleged.
Only such directions which are explicit in a  judgment
or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for  the
purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been  any  disobedience  or willful violation of the same.
Decided issues cannot be reopened;  nor  the plea of equities can be considered.  
Courts  must  also  ensure  that  while
considering a contempt plea the  power  available  to  the  Court  in  other
corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is  not  trenched  upon.   
No order or direction supplemental to what has been  already  expressed  should
be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the  domain  of  the
contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate  in  other  jurisdictions
vested in the Court, as noticed above.  
The above  principles  would  appear
to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited  at  the  bar,  namely,
Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs.  Tarak  Nath  Ganguly  and  Others[3],
V.M.Manohar Prasad vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another[4], Bihar Finance  Service
House  Construction  Cooperative  Society  Ltd.  vs.  Gautam   Goswami   and
Others[5]  and Union of India and Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV[6].

16.   Applying the above settled principles to the case  before  us,  it  is
clear that the direction of the High Court  for  creation  of  supernumerary
posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator cannot be countenanced.  
 Not  only
the Courts must act with utmost restraint before  compelling  the  executive
to create additional posts, the  impugned  direction  virtually  amounts  to
supplementing the directions contained in the order of the High Court  dated
02.8.2006.  
The alterative direction i.e. to grant parity of pay could  very
well have been occasioned by the stand taken by the Corporation with  regard
to the necessity of keeping in existence the cadre itself  in  view  of  the
operational needs of the Corporation.  
If despite the specific  stand  taken
by the Corporation in this regard the High Court was of the  view  that  the
respondents should be absorbed as Marine Assistant  Radio  Operator  nothing
prevented the High  Court  from  issuing  a  specific  direction  to  create
supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator.  The  same  was  not
done.  
If that be so, the direction to create  supernumerary  posts  at  the
stage of exercise of the contempt jurisdiction has to be  understood  to  be
an addition to the initial order passed in the Writ Petition.  
The  argument
that such a direction is implicit in the  order  dated  02.08.2006  is  self
defeating.  
Neither, is  such  a  course  of  action  open  to  balance  the
equities, i.e. not to foreclose the promotional avenues of the  petitioners,
as vehemently urged by Shri Rao.  The issue is one of jurisdiction  and  not
of justification.  
Whether the direction issued would be  justified  by  way
of review or in exercise of any other jurisdiction is an  aspect  that  does
not concern us in the present  case.  Of  relevance  is  the  fact  that  an
alternative direction had been issued by the High Court by its  order  dated
02.08.2006  and  the  appellants,  as  officers  of  the  Corporation,  have
complied with the same.  They cannot  be,  therefore,   understood  to  have
acted in willful disobedience of the said order of  the  Court.    
All  that
was required in terms of the second direction having been complied  with  by
the appellants, we are of the view that the order  dated  02.08.2006  passed
in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 stands  duly  implemented.  
Consequently,  we  set
aside the Order dated 19.01.2012 passed in  Contempt  Petition  No.  161  of
2010, as well as the impugned order  dated  11.07.2012  passed  in  Contempt
Appeal No.2 of 2012 and allow the present appeal.


                                       ...…………………………CJI.
                                        [P. SATHASIVAM]



                                        .........………………………J.
                                        [RANJAN GOGOI]




                                                       …..........……………………J.
                                        [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 4, 2014.
-----------------------
[1]    (1997) 9 SCC 377
[2]    (2001) 7 SCC 1
[3]    (2002) 5 SCC 352
[4]    (2004) 13 SCC 610
[5]    (2008) 5 SCC 339
[6]    (2006) 1 SCC 613

-----------------------
18

Contempt of Court - suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction- compromise decree with some of the defendants - when patwari and Thasildar entered the name of non-compromised party defying the compromise decree - not amounts to wilful disobedience of court order and not amount to contempt of court = Nafis Ahmad & Another ... Petitioners versus Narain Singh & Others ... Respondents = 2014( February part) judis.nic.in/supreme court/filename=41197

Contempt of Court - suit  for declaration  of  their  title  and  permanent  injunction-  compromise decree with some of the defendants - when patwari  and Thasildar entered the name of non-compromised party defying the compromise decree - not amounts to wilful disobedience of court order and not amount to contempt of court =

The petitioners have alleged that respondent  No.3
             Ashiq Ali was a respondent in the  civil  appeal  before  this
             Court, admitting the title of  the  petitioners  to  the  suit
             property.  
But respondent No.1  Patwari  and  Respondent  No.2
             Tahsildar have recorded the name  of  respondent  No.3  namely
             Ashiq Ali  in Khasra No.1276/1 in the year  2011  defying  the
             decree of this Court. =           

The legal  representative  Nos.  2(i)  to
             2(iv)   of deceased original respondent No.2  Maseet  Ali  did
             not appear in the civil appeal though served and they did  not
             enter  into  compromise  with  the  petitioners.   
This  Court
             disposed of the civil  appeal  declaring  the  rights  of  the
             petitioners vis-à-vis and the legal heirs of  deceased  –Nabbu
             Khan on the terms of compromise petition.

          6. In such circumstances, there is no willful disobedience on the
             part of the respondents as alleged by the petitioners.




          7. The   Contempt  Petition  is,   therefore,   closed.   However
             liberty is given to the petitioners to pursue the  appropriate
             remedy available in law.
  

2014( February part) judis.nic.in/supreme court/filename=41197
T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN
                                              Non-reportable

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                  CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.119 OF 2013
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.8572 OF 2003



     Nafis Ahmad & Another        ...  Petitioners

                                   versus

     Narain Singh & Others         ...           Respondents







                               J U D G M E N T

     C. NAGAPPAN, J.

          1. The petitioners have sought for punishing the respondents  for
             willful disobeying  the judgment and decree  dated  10.12.2007
             of this Court  in Civil Appeal No.8527 of 2003.

          2. The  case  of  the  petitioners  is  that  they  were  put  in
             possession of the suit property pursuant to  an  agreement  of
             sale with the  owners on 3.5.1950  and  they  filed  suit  for
             declaration  of  their  title  and  permanent  injunction   on
             12.7.1996 and the suit  was  decreed  but  on  appeal  it  was
             reversed by the Appellate Court and the High  Court  confirmed
             the same  in  second  appeal  and  the  petitioners  preferred
             further appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal No.8572 of  2003,
             and during the pendency of the appeal the matter  was  settled
             and a Compromise  Petition under Order  23  Rule  3   CPC  was
             filed and this Court disposed of the civil appeal on the terms
             enumerated in  the  compromise  petition,  by  judgment  dated
             10.12.2007 and the  petitioners  thus  became  owners  of  the
             property.   The petitioners have alleged that respondent  No.3
             Ashiq Ali was a respondent in the  civil  appeal  before  this
             Court, admitting the title of  the  petitioners  to  the  suit
             property.  But respondent No.1  Patwari  and  Respondent  No.2
             Tahsildar have recorded the name  of  respondent  No.3  namely
             Ashiq Ali  in Khasra No.1276/1 in the year  2011  defying  the
             decree of this Court.




          3. Respondent No. 3 though served has not chosen to appear either
             through counsel or in  person  in  this  petition.  Heard  the
             learned counsel for the parties.

          4. It is true that a compromise petition under Order  23  Rule  3
             CPC came to be filed in Civil Appeal No.8572 of 2003 and  this
             Court disposed of the appeal on the terms enumerated   in  the
             compromise petition.  The terms of the compromise petition are
             relevant and are extracted below:




              “The Petitioners have compromised with  the  legal  heirs  of
              deceased-Nabbu Khan at Rs.1,45,051/- (Rupees one  lakh  forty
              five thousand fifty one only) and the said legal  heirs    of
              deceased-Nabbu Khan  received  this  money.   Therefore  from
              today onwards the legal heirs of the said  Nabbu  Khan  shall
              have no concern with the  lands  in  dispute  bearing  Survey
              Nos.1276/1  measuring 19 bighas; 1276/2 measuring  12  bighas
              and  1279  measuring  11  bighas  and  19  biswas,  the   new
              Settlement numbers whereof are 1166 measuring 2-46 Hect; 1170
              measuring 1-96 Hect i.e. total area 4-42  Hect.,   government
              cess Rs.70.32.  The   petitioners  have  been  in  continuous
              possession of the aforesaid lands since the  times  of  their
              father.  Petitioners-Mushtaq Ahmad etc.,  shall  continue  to
              remain owners and occupiers of the aforesaid lands. …….   We,
              the defendants/respondents and  legal  heirs  of  Nabbu  Khan
              shall not raise any objection whatsoever in  future  in  this
              regard.”




          5. It reveals that  the petitioners  herein have compromised with
             the legal heirs of  deceased-Nabbu  Khan  with  the  lands  in
             dispute and they admitted ownership  of  the  petitioners  and
             undertook not to raise any  objection  in  future.  Respondent
             No.3 Ashiq Ali is the legal heir of original  Respondent  No.2
             in the Civil Appeal namely Maseet Ali and he was impleaded  as
             such in the appeal.  The legal  representative  Nos.  2(i)  to
             2(iv)   of deceased original respondent No.2  Maseet  Ali  did
             not appear in the civil appeal though served and they did  not
             enter  into  compromise  with  the  petitioners.   This  Court
             disposed of the civil  appeal  declaring  the  rights  of  the
             petitioners vis-à-vis and the legal heirs of  deceased  –Nabbu
             Khan on the terms of compromise petition.

          6. In such circumstances, there is no willful disobedience on the
             part of the respondents as alleged by the petitioners.




          7. The   Contempt  Petition  is,   therefore,   closed.   However
             liberty is given to the petitioners to pursue the  appropriate
             remedy available in law.

                                                              …………………………….J.
                                             (T.S. Thakur)






                                                               ……………………………J.
                                             (C. Nagappan)
     New Delhi;
     February 04, 2014

Right to health and medical care - Writ petition - some directions are given by Apex court for implementation for CFTPPs workers working in various Thermal power plants in India = Occupational Health and Safety Association … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents = 2014 (January part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41196

  Right to health and medical care - Writ petition - some directions are given by Apex court for implementation   for CFTPPs workers working in various Thermal power plants in India =
whether  CFTPPs
are complying with safety standards and the rules and  regulations  relating
to the health of the employees working  in  various  CFTPPs  throughout  the
country
 This Court in Consumer Education  &  Research  Centre  and  others  v.
Union of India and others (1995) 3 SCC  42,  has  held  that  
the  right  to
health and medical care  to  protect  one’s  health  and  vigour,  while  in
service or post-retirement,  is  a  fundamental  right  of  a  worker  under
Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48-A and all related
Articles and fundamental human rights  to  make  the  life  of  the  workman
meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person.  The Court held  that  the
compelling necessity to work in an industry exposed to  health  hazards  due
to indigence to bread-winning for himself and his dependents should  not  be
at the cost of health and vigour of the workman.

10.   Right to health i.e. right to live  in  a  clean,  hygienic  and  safe
environment is a right flowing from Article 21.  Clean surroundings lead  to
healthy body and healthy mind.  But, unfortunately, for eking  a  livelihood
and for national interest, many  employees  work  in  dangerous,  risky  and
unhygienic environment.  Right to  live  with  human  dignity  enshrined  in
Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive  Principles  of  State
Policy, particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Articles 39, 41 and  42.   Those
Articles include protection of health and strength of workers and  just  and
humane conditions of work. Those are minimum requirements which  must  exist
to enable a  person  to  live  with  human  dignity.   Every  State  has  an
obligation and duty to provide  at  least  the  minimum  condition  ensuring
human dignity. But when workers are engaged  in  such  hazardous  and  risky
jobs, then  the  responsibility  and  duty  on  the  State  is  double-fold.
Occupational health and safety issues of CFTPPs are associated with  thermal
discharge, air and coal emission, fire hazards, explosion hazards etc.  Dust
emanates  also  contain  free  silica  associated  with  silicosis,  arsenic
leading to skin and lung cancer, coal dust leading to  black  lung  and  the
potential harmful substances.  Necessity for  constant  supervision  and  to
the drive to mitigate the harmful effects  on  the  workers  is  of  extreme
importance. 
Following  are  the  main
suggestions put forward before this Court :

      1.    Comprehensive medical checkup of all workers in all  coal  fired
           thermal power stations by doctors appointed in consultation with
           the trade unions.  First medical check up to be completed within
           six months.  Then to be done on yearly basis.


      2.    Free and comprehensive medical treatment to be provided  to  all
           workers found to be  suffering  from  an  occupational  disease,
           ailment or accident, until cured or until death.


      3.    Services of the workmen not to be terminated during illness  and
           to be treated as if on duty.


      4.     Compensation  to  be  paid  to  workmen  suffering   from   any
           occupational disease, aliment or accident in accordance with the
           provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.


      5.    Modern  protective  equipment  to  be  provided  to  workmen  as
           recommended by an expert body in  consultation  with  the  trade
           unions.


      6.    Strict control  measures  to  be  immediately  adopted  for  the
           control of dust, heat, noise,  vibration  and  radiation  to  be
           recommended by the National  Institute  of  Occupational  Health
           (NIOH) Ahmadabad, Gujarat.


      7.    All employees to abide by the Code of Practice  on  Occupational
           Safety and Health Audit as developed by  the  Bureau  of  Indian
           Standards.


      8.    Safe methods  be  followed  for  the  handling,  collection  and
           disposal of hazardous waste to be recommended by NIOH.


      9.    Appointment of a Committee of experts by NIOH including  therein
           Trade Union representatives and Health and Safety NGO’s to  look
           into the  issue  of  Health  and  Safety  of  workers  and  make
           recommendations.

The NIOH  in  its  Report  in
2011 has already made its recommendations with respect  to  the  suggestions
made by this  Court  in  its  order  dated  30.1.2008.   Since  the  Central
Government has already accepted suggestions no.1 to 7, at the moment we  are
concerned with suggestions no.8 and 9, which we reiterate as follows :-


      “8.   Safe methods  be  followed  for  the  handling,  collection  and
           disposal of hazardous waste to be recommended by NIOH.


      9.    Appointment of a Committee of experts by NIOH including  therein
           Trade Union representatives and Health and Safety NGO’s to  look
           into the  issue  of  Health  and  Safety  of  workers  and  make
           recommendations.”
 The Government of  India  later  placed  a  Report  of  the  Committee
prepared by the National Institute  of  Occupational  Health  (NIOH)  titled
Environment, Health and Safety Issues in Coal Fired Thermal Power Plants  of
the year 2011.

 Report of National Institute  of  Occupational  Health  (NIOH)  titled
Environment, Health and Safety Issues in Coal Fired Thermal Power Plants  of
the year 2011 may also be made available by the  Secretary  General  of  the
Supreme Court to the Registrar Generals of the High Courts of the  aforesaid
States.   
We make it clear that the Report is not at  all  comprehensive  in
certain aspects and the  respective  High  Courts  can  examine  the  issues
projected in this Judgment  independently  after  calling  for  the  reports
about the CFTPPs functioning in  their  respective  States.   
The  Registrar
Generals of High Courts of the aforesaid States should place  this  Judgment
before the Chief Justices of the respective States so  as  to  initiate  suo
moto proceedings in the larger interest of the workers working in CFTPPs  in
the respective States.

20.   The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

2014  (January part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41196

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, A.K. SIKRI
                                                           REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.79 OF 2005

Occupational Health and
Safety Association                                   … Petitioner
                       Versus
Union of India and others                        … Respondents


                               J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1.     The  Petitioner,  a  non-profit  occupational   health   and   safety
organization, registered under the Societies  Registration  Act,  1860,  has
invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under  Article  32  of
the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-

      a.    To issue a writ of  mandamus  or  any  other  appropriate  writ,
           order,  or  direction  directing  the   Respondents   to   frame
           guidelines  with  respect  to  occupational  safety  and  health
           regulations to be maintained by various industries;


      b.    To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
           or direction directing respondents to appoint and  constitute  a
           committee for the monitoring of the  working  of  thermal  power
           plants in India and to keep check on the health and safety norms
           for the workers working in their power stations;


      c.    To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
           or direction directing the respondents to  pay  compensation  to
           the workers who are victims of occupational health disorders and
           to frame a scheme  of  compensation  for  workers  in  cases  of
           occupational health disorders;


      d.    To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
           or  direction  directing   the   respondents   to   notify   the
           recommendations as contained in paragraph 35 of the Petition  as
           guidelines to be followed by thermal power plant.


2.    The Petitioner represents about 130 Coal Fired  Thermal  Power  Plants
(CFTPPs) in India spread over  different  States  in  the  country,  but  no
proper occupational health services  with  adequate  facilities  for  health
delivery system or guidelines with respect to  occupational  safety  are  in
place.   Factories  Act,  Boilers  Act,  Employees’  State  Insurance   Act,
Compensation Act, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)  Act,  the
Air (Prevention and Control  of  Pollution)  Act,  Environmental  Protection
Act, etc. are in place, but the  lack  of  proper  health  delivery  system,
evaluation of occupational  health  status  of  workers,  their  safety  and
protection cause serious occupational health hazards.

3.    The Petitioner herein filed I.A. No.1  of  2005  and  2  of  2007  and
highlighted the serious diseases, the workers working in thermal plants  are
suffering from  over  a  period  of  years.  
The  Report  produced  by  the
Petitioner would indicate that  half  of  the  workers  have  lung  function
abnormalities, pulmonary function  test  abnormalities,  senor  neuro  loss,
skin diseases, asthama, and so on.
This Court noticing the same, passed  an
interim order on 30.1.2008, after taking note  of  the  various  suggestions
made at the Bar to reduce the occupational hazards of the employees  working
in various thermal power stations in the country.  Following  are  the  main
suggestions put forward before this Court :

      1.    Comprehensive medical checkup of all workers in all  coal  fired
           thermal power stations by doctors appointed in consultation with
           the trade unions.  First medical check up to be completed within
           six months.  Then to be done on yearly basis.


      2.    Free and comprehensive medical treatment to be provided  to  all
           workers found to be  suffering  from  an  occupational  disease,
           ailment or accident, until cured or until death.


      3.    Services of the workmen not to be terminated during illness  and
           to be treated as if on duty.


      4.     Compensation  to  be  paid  to  workmen  suffering   from   any
           occupational disease, aliment or accident in accordance with the
           provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.


      5.    Modern  protective  equipment  to  be  provided  to  workmen  as
           recommended by an expert body in  consultation  with  the  trade
           unions.


      6.    Strict control  measures  to  be  immediately  adopted  for  the
           control of dust, heat, noise,  vibration  and  radiation  to  be
           recommended by the National  Institute  of  Occupational  Health
           (NIOH) Ahmadabad, Gujarat.


      7.    All employees to abide by the Code of Practice  on  Occupational
           Safety and Health Audit as developed by  the  Bureau  of  Indian
           Standards.


      8.    Safe methods  be  followed  for  the  handling,  collection  and
           disposal of hazardous waste to be recommended by NIOH.


      9.    Appointment of a Committee of experts by NIOH including  therein
           Trade Union representatives and Health and Safety NGO’s to  look
           into the  issue  of  Health  and  Safety  of  workers  and  make
           recommendations.

4.    Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned  Additional  Solicitor  General,  submitted
that the suggestions no.1 to 7 have been accepted by the Central  Government
stating that they are broadly covered in  various  existing  enactments  and
consequently  pro-occupational  action  would   be   taken   for   effective
implementation of the relevant laws, in particular, areas covered  by  those
suggestions.  After recording the above submissions,  this  Court  had  also
directed the Ministry of Labour to take steps to see that those  suggestions
and relevant provisions of the various Labour Acts are properly  implemented
to protect the welfare of the employees.  Learned ASG also submitted  before
the Court that the Central Government would examine  whether  the  remaining
two suggestions i.e. suggestion nos.8 and 9 could  be  implemented  and,  if
so, to what extent.

5.    The Writ Petition again came up  for  hearing  before  this  Court  on
6.9.2010 and this Court passed the following order:
      “Vide order dated January 30, 2008,  Respondent  No.1  had  agreed  to
      Guideline Nos.1 to 7.


      However, time was taken to consider  Guidelines  Nos.8  and  9,  which
      primarily dealt with the appointment of Committee of Experts by  NIOH.
       The constitution of that Committee is also  spelt  out  in  Guideline
      No.9.   Today, when the matter came up for hearing before this  Court,
      learned Solicitor General stated that the  Committee  of  Experts  has
      been duly constituted by NIOH and it will submit its status report  on
      the next occasion.


      The writ petition shall stand over for eight weeks.”

6.    The Government of  India  later  placed  a  Report  of  the  Committee
prepared by the National Institute  of  Occupational  Health  (NIOH)  titled
Environment, Health and Safety Issues in Coal Fired Thermal Power Plants  of
the year 2011.

7.    Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel, referring to the  above-
mentioned Report, submitted that the Union of India as  also  the  Committee
have misunderstood the scope of the suggestion nos.8 and 9.  Learned  senior
counsel submitted that not much importance was given to the  serious  health
problems being faced by the workers who are working  in  the  thermal  power
plants and the treatment they require as well as the payment  of  wages  and
compensation to those  workers  who  are  suffering  from  serious  illness.
Learned senior counsel pointed out that some urgent steps  should  be  taken
to ensure the health and safety of the workers,  through  comprehensive  and
timely medical examinations, follow-up  treatment  as  well  as  to  provide
compensation for the serious occupational diseases they are suffering  from.
 Even these vital aspects, according to the  learned  senior  counsel,  have
been completely overlooked by the Committee.

8.    Learned ASG submitted that the Report of  the  NIOH  is  comprehensive
and all relevant aspects have been taken care of and that there are  several
laws to protect the health and safety of the workers who are working in  the
various thermal power stations in the country.  Learned ASG  also  submitted
that the Committee has recommended the need of occupational health  services
with adequate facilities for health  delivery  system  and  that  all  power
generating authorities must have well defined  sector-specific  occupational
health safety and environmental  management  framework.   Learned  ASG  also
submitted that the Report would  be  implemented  in  its  true  letter  and
spirit.

9.    This Court in Consumer Education  &  Research  Centre  and  others  v.
Union of India and others (1995) 3 SCC  42,  has  held  that
the  right  to
health and medical care  to  protect  one’s  health  and  vigour,  while  in
service or post-retirement,  is  a  fundamental  right  of  a  worker  under
Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48-A and all related
Articles and fundamental human rights  to  make  the  life  of  the  workman
meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person.  The Court held  that  the
compelling necessity to work in an industry exposed to  health  hazards  due
to indigence to bread-winning for himself and his dependents should  not  be
at the cost of health and vigour of the workman.

10.   Right to health i.e. right to live  in  a  clean,  hygienic  and  safe
environment is a right flowing from Article 21.  Clean surroundings lead  to
healthy body and healthy mind.  But, unfortunately, for eking  a  livelihood
and for national interest, many  employees  work  in  dangerous,  risky  and
unhygienic environment.  Right to  live  with  human  dignity  enshrined  in
Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive  Principles  of  State
Policy, particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Articles 39, 41 and  42.   Those
Articles include protection of health and strength of workers and  just  and
humane conditions of work. Those are minimum requirements which  must  exist
to enable a  person  to  live  with  human  dignity.   Every  State  has  an
obligation and duty to provide  at  least  the  minimum  condition  ensuring
human dignity. But when workers are engaged  in  such  hazardous  and  risky
jobs, then  the  responsibility  and  duty  on  the  State  is  double-fold.
Occupational health and safety issues of CFTPPs are associated with  thermal
discharge, air and coal emission, fire hazards, explosion hazards etc.  Dust
emanates  also  contain  free  silica  associated  with  silicosis,  arsenic
leading to skin and lung cancer, coal dust leading to  black  lung  and  the
potential harmful substances.  Necessity for  constant  supervision  and  to
the drive to mitigate the harmful effects  on  the  workers  is  of  extreme
importance.

11.   India is one of the largest coal producing countries in the world  and
it has numerous CFTPPs requiring nearly 440 million tons of coal  per  year.
We have about 130 CFTPPs in India.  The thermal power plants generate  about
two-third of the electricity consumed in India, while 54.3%  of  the  energy
demand is met by coal fired power generation.  The NIOH  in  its  Report  in
2011 has already made its recommendations with respect  to  the  suggestions
made by this  Court  in  its  order  dated  30.1.2008.   Since  the  Central
Government has already accepted suggestions no.1 to 7, at the moment we  are
concerned with suggestions no.8 and 9, which we reiterate as follows :-


      “8.   Safe methods  be  followed  for  the  handling,  collection  and
           disposal of hazardous waste to be recommended by NIOH.


      9.    Appointment of a Committee of experts by NIOH including  therein
           Trade Union representatives and Health and Safety NGO’s to  look
           into the  issue  of  Health  and  Safety  of  workers  and  make
           recommendations.”


12.    The Report in para 4.1.2 has referred to various health  hazards  and
the same is reproduced hereinbelow :-
      “4.1.2 General
      .     Use of Hazardous Material  for  Insulation:   Certain  materials
           such as asbestos, glass wool etc. are used for insulation. These
           materials are highly dangerous to human health, if inhaled or if
           contacted with  the  eye/skin  surface.    While  handling  such
           materials, the PPE should be provided to the workers as well  as
           proper disposal of waste  asbestos  and  glass  wool  should  be
           ensured.   Nowadays,  safer  substitutes,  such   as   p-aramid,
           polyvinyl alcohol  (PVA),  cellulose,  polyacrylonitrile,  glass
           fibres,  graphite  are  available,  the  use  of  which  may  be
           explored.
      .     Compliance with the provisions of the  Environment  (Protection)
           Act and its amendments from time  to  time  applicable  for  the
           power  plants  with  respect  to  emission  and  discharge,  ash
           utilization and hazardous waste management should be ensured  to
           protect the ambient environment as well  as  maintain  safe  and
           healthy working conditions for the workers.
      .     The generated fly ash need to be utilized as per the CPCB annual
           implementation report on fly ash utilization (2009-10) that 100%
           utilization to be achieved by the power plants, within  5  years
           from the date of notification (refer  to  Table  17,  page  48).
           For new CFTPPs, the fly ash utilization needs to be regulated as
           per the schedule given in Table 17.
      .     It is desirable that the coal handling facilities are mechanized
           and automated to the extent possible.
      .     Occupational health services should be provided for  wide  range
           benefit  to  the  workers.   Broadly,  it  should  contain   the
           facilities for occupational health delivery system with  trained
           manpower   and    infrastructure    including    investigational
           facilities, environmental assessment, evaluation of occupational
           health status and first aid training of the workers  on  regular
           basis.  These services should be independent and  separate  from
           hospital services (curative  service)  but  should  function  in
           liaison with the curative service.
      .     Periodic awareness programmes regarding the  health  and  safety
           with active involvement of  the  workers  should  be  organized,
           covering  each  individual  with  the  minimum  annual   average
           duration  of  8  hours  per  worker.   Regular  community  level
           awareness programmes may be organized in  the  vicinity  of  the
           plant for the family members of the workers.
      .     Periodic  medical  examination  (PME),  as  required  under  the
           Factories Act should be undertaken.  However, the investigations
           performed under the PME should be relevant to the job exposures.
            Since coal/ash handling workers  are  prone  to  dust  exposure
           related diseases, due attention is required  to  those  workers.
           In case of need, the frequency of PME may be scheduled, based on
           observation of the health check-up information.   Providing  PPE
           and re-locating of job for those workers may also be considered.
      .     As per recommendations of the Factories Act, the workers need to
           be  examined  radiologically  (chest  X-ray)  on  yearly  basis.
           However, in order to avoid unnecessary  exposure  of  the  human
           body to the radiation, the regular yearly  chest  X-ray  is  not
           recommended,  unless  urgent  and  essential.   Considering  the
           latency  period  of  development  of   pneumoconiosis,   it   is
           recommended to undergo chest X-ray every two years  for  initial
           10 years and based on  the  progression,  re-scheduling  may  be
           adopted.  After 10 years it should be done on  yearly  basis  or
           earlier depending on the development and/or progression  of  the
           disease.
      .     Health  records  should  be  maintained  in  easily  retrievable
           manner, preferably in electronic form.  The provision should  be
           made to recall the worker, as and when his or her  check  up  is
           due.  Pre-placement medical examination and proper documentation
           of records should be mandatory.
      .     A comprehensive  document  on  environment,  health  and  safety
           specific to coal based thermal power projects should be  framed.
           It should cover the legal provisions,  management  system,  best
           practices, safe operating procedures, etc. for various areas  of
           thermal power plants.   This will serve as a reference  document
           for effective implementation of the provisions.
      .     All CFTPPs should have environmental and occupational health and
           safety management systems in place, which are auditable by third
           party, approved by  the  Govt  of  India  (Ministry  of  Power).
           Participatory management regarding health and  safety  at  plant
           level may be ensured.
      .      The  occupier  of  the  CFTPP  shall  be  responsible  for  the
           compliance   of   provisions   of   the   Factories’   Act   for
           casual/contractual labour on health and safety issues.  In  case
           of women workers, the  provisions  of  the  Factories’  Act,  as
           applicable, shall be given attention.

13.   Para 3.1.2 of the  Report  specifically  refers  to  the  occupational
health and safety issues of workers in CFTPPs.  The Report  also  refers  to
the hazards associated with (a) dust, (b) heat, (c)  noise,  (d)  vibration,
(e) radiation, and (f) disposal of waste.   After dealing with those  health
hazards,  the  Committee  has  stated  that  the  hazards  associated   with
inhalation of  coal  dust  might  result  in  development  of  dust  related
morbidity in  the  form  of  pneumoconiosis  (coal  workers  pneumoconiosis,
silicosis) and non-pneumoconiotic persistent respiratory  morbidities,  such
as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, etc.   Further,  it  also  pointed
out that  whenever  asbestos  fibres  are  used  for  insulation  and  other
purposes, the possibility of asbestosis among workers due to  inhalation  of
asbestos fibres cannot be ruled out.    The  Report  also  says  that  other
morbidities because of exposure to fly ash, including metallic  constituents
such as lead, arsenic, and mercury might also be present.  Due  to  exposure
to other chemicals used in different operations of CFTPP, the  Report  says,
may also be responsible to adversely affect human health.

14.   Report further  says  that  occupational  exposure  to  high  heat  in
different thermal power plants may also cause heat related  disorders,  like
heat exhaustion.  
Noise and vibration exposures in  higher  doses  than  the
permissible limits may result in noise-induced hearing  loss,  raised  blood
pressure, regional vascular  disorders,  musculo-skeletal  disorders,  human
error,  productivity  loss,  accidents  and  injuries.    
Radiation  hazards
particularly from the generated fly ash and  its  used  products  have  also
been indicated of possible  health  risks.   
Different  chemicals  that  are
often being used in  CFTPPs,  such  as  chlorine,  ammonia,  fuel  oil,  and
released in the working and community environment  may  be  responsible  for
wide range of acute as well as  chronic  health  impairments.   
Since  large
quantities of coal, other  fuels  and  chemicals  are  stored  and  used  in
CFTPPs, the risks of fire and explosion are high,  unless  special  care  is
taken in  handling  the  materials.    
It  may  cause  fire  and  explosion.
Further, it may also be pointed out that  in  various  work  operations  for
manual materials handling, the workers  are  subjected  to  high  degree  of
physical stress, with potential  risks  of  musculo-skeletal  disorders  and
injuries.

15.   In para 3.1.5 the Report  suggests  certain  protective  measures  for
health and safety and also steps to be taken for emergency  preparedness  on
spot/off-spot emergency plans and  also  the  measures  to  be  adopted  for
social welfare.

16.   We may notice, the recommendations made are to be  welcomed,  but  how
far they are put into practice and what  preventive  actions  are  taken  to
protect the workers from the  serious  health-hazards  associated  with  the
work in CFTPPs calls  for  serious  attention.   Many  workers  employed  in
various CFTPPs are reported to be suffering from serious  diseases  referred
to earlier.  What are the steps taken by CFTPPs and the Union of  India  and
the statutory authorities to protect them from serious  health  hazards  and
also the medical treatment extended to  them,  including  compensation  etc.
calls for detailed examination.

17.   We notice that CFTPPs are spread over various States  in  the  country
like Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,  and  so  on,
and it would not be practicable for this Court  to  examine  whether  CFTPPs
are complying with safety standards and the rules and  regulations  relating
to the health of the employees working  in  various  CFTPPs  throughout  the
country.  We feel that  these  aspects  could  be  better  examined  by  the
respective  High  Courts  in  whose  jurisdiction  these  power  plants  are
situated.  The High Court should  examine  whether  there  is  adequate  and
effective  health  delivery  system  in  place  and  whether  there  is  any
evaluation of occupational health status of the  workers.   The  High  Court
should also examine whether any effective medical treatment is meted out  to
them.

18.   We, therefore, feel that it is  appropriate  to  relegate  it  to  the
various High Courts to examine these  issues  with  the  assistance  of  the
State Governments after  calling  for  necessary  Reports  from  the  CFTPPs
situated in their respective States.  For the said purpose, we  are  sending
a copy of this Judgment to the Chief Secretaries of  the  respective  States
as well as Registrar Generals of the High Courts of the following States :

        a) Uttar Pradesh
        b) Chhattisgarh
        c) Maharashtra
        d) Andhra Pradesh
        e) West Bengal
        f) Madhya Pradesh
        g) Bihar
        h) Orissa
        i) Haryana
        j) Rajasthan
        k) Punjab
        l) Delhi/NCT Delhi
        m) Gujarat
        n) Karnataka
        o) Kerala
        p) Tamil Nadu
        q) Jharkhand
        r) Assam

19.   Report of National Institute  of  Occupational  Health  (NIOH)  titled
Environment, Health and Safety Issues in Coal Fired Thermal Power Plants  of
the year 2011 may also be made available by the  Secretary  General  of  the
Supreme Court to the Registrar Generals of the High Courts of the  aforesaid
States.  
We make it clear that the Report is not at  all  comprehensive  in
certain aspects and the  respective  High  Courts  can  examine  the  issues
projected in this Judgment  independently  after  calling  for  the  reports
about the CFTPPs functioning in  their  respective  States.  
The  Registrar
Generals of High Courts of the aforesaid States should place  this  Judgment
before the Chief Justices of the respective States so  as  to  initiate  suo
moto proceedings in the larger interest of the workers working in CFTPPs  in
the respective States.

20.   The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.




                                        …..………………………J.
                                        (K.S. Radhakrishnan)




                                        ………………………….J.
                                        (A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi,
January 31, 2014.