In a public interest litigation filed before the Calcutta High Court regarding the unnatural deaths of four labourers and the injuries suffered by other labourers engaged in de-silting of the underground sewer line in South Kolkata, which was done in connection with a project of Kolkata Environment Infrastructure Improvement Project (KEIIP), a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das directed payment of compensation worth Rs. 5 lakhs to the injured victims and Rs. 30 lakhs to the families of the deceased, among other directions.
The present petition was filed to seek an independent investigation regarding the afore-mentioned incident, which took place on 25-02-2021, along with an interim compensation of at least Rs. 16 lakhs each to the families of the deceased labourers and Rs. 5 lakhs each to the families of the injured labourers.
It was asserted that all safety rules were violated during the de-silting process, as there were no qualified engineers to supervise the workers. It was contended that all labourers who entered the pit to connect the drainage pumping station with the sewerage line became unconscious after inhaling toxic fumes and drowning in the sewer sludge.
After the media reported the incident, the chairman of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation constituted a three-member committee, which found the contractor guilty and asked him to pay Rs. 5 lakhs each to the families of the deceased. However, nobody was arrested. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but received no information.
The respondents submitted that a seven-member committee was constituted to enquire into the said incident, and based on their findings, not only was the contractor asked to pay Rs. 10 lakhs each to the families of the deceased, but a First Information Report (FIR) was also lodged against him. It was also asserted that the partner companies had been blacklisted for 5 years and debarred from participating in any KMC tender.
The Court found it shocking that a PIL had to be filed for the provision of legitimate claims to the injured labourers and the families of the deceased labourers. It was said to be a stark reminder of the country’s ongoing struggle to ensure basic human dignity and rights for all citizens, despite significant progress in various fields.
The Court stated that the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, was enacted to eliminate this evil system and protect human dignity. While taking note of various Supreme Court decisions, the Court noted that the affidavit filed on behalf of the State or KMC did not mention the constitution of any monitoring committee as per the Act.
The Court found that the supplementary report of the committee disclosed that, although DSC was responsible for supervision, it did not resolve the problem of laying pipelines and failed to notice that the manhole could not be dried after pumping it for two days. The committee had opined that DSC should also have been responsible for disbursing compensation.
Further, it was stated that no explanation could be found as to why the direction of the Supreme Court to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as compensation to the families of dead manual scavengers had not been complied with. The Court expressed concern regarding the stand taken by KMC and said that they could not escape liability and obligation by shifting negligence solely to the agency.
The Court held that the respondent authorities had failed to comply with the direction of the Supreme Court and to frame guidelines in accordance with the 2013 Act. Thus, respondents 1 to 6 were directed to pay Rs. 5 lakh each to the injured victims within two months and Rs. 30 lakh each to the families of the deceased victims within three months, after deducting the amounts already paid.
Further, the government was directed to constitute a committee as per the 2013 Act, followed by the directions issued in Safai Karmachari Andolon v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 224 and Dr. Balaram Singh v. Union of India 2023 INSC 950 within 30 days. Whereas, respondent 7 was directed to ensure an independent investigation regarding the subject incident and to submit a report regarding the steps taken within 4 weeks. Lastly, the State authorities were directed to file a separate report showing compliance with the order.
While disposing of the petition, the Court asked the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, to contact the families of the subject labourers and to communicate the present order to them while providing legal assistance to ensure payment of the compensation.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) – Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Mr. Mahaboob Ahmed
For Respondent(s) – Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh, Mr. Subhrangsu Panda
