Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the Manesar Auto Industrial Belt

Assembly Line ofBroken Fingers
sisnu=~,..........~
~~
.~,~
Submitted to the SocietyforLabor and Development
By Craig Friedel,Keivan Roebuck,and Tapan Bhardwaj
March 2015

Table ofContents
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1
I.Summary......................................................................................................................2
II.Methodology..............................................................................................................3
A.Research..................................................................................................................... 3
B.Interviews.................................................................................................................. 3
C.MethodologicalSummary.........................................................................................4
III.Legal Framework....................................................................................................4
A.National Occupational Health and Safety Laws ................................................... 5
1. Constitutional Guarantees ofan Employees'Right to Health and Safety....5
2. National Statutes...................................................................................................6
i. Health Provisions under the Factories Act, 1948.............................................6
ii. The Employees'State Insurance(ESI)Act,1948............................................ 7
B.International Health and Safety Laws...................................................................8
1. Universal Declaration on Human Rights ............................................................9
2.International Covenanton Economic,Social,and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR)............................................................................................... 10
3.International Labour Organization Conventions ............................................. 10
IV.Findings...................................................................................................................11
A.Occupational Hazards and Injuries: Violations ofDomestic and International
Law................................................................................................................................ 11
1.Case Study:R.D.0 Imports................................................................................. 12
i. Background on SLD's Fightfor RDC Workers............................................... 12
ii. Specific RDC Worker's Stories ........................................................................ 13
2. Other Workers'Problems Not Limited to Machine Press Operators.............. 14
3.Major Violations................................................................................................... 15
B.Regulation and Reporting ofOccupational Hazards and Injuries..................... 16
1. Regulatory Mechanism:Inspections, Fines,and Adjudication........................ 17
i. General Background on the Central Government Regulatory Mechanism
Provided by the ILO............................................................................... 17

ii. Haryana Regulatory Mechanism .................................................................... 18
2.Treatment and Reporting Mechanism ............................................................... 20
i. Treatment ofInjuries and ESI......................................................................... 21
ii. Mechanismsfor Reporting ofInjuries............................................................ 22
C.Summary ofFindings............................................................................................. 23
V. Moving Toward a Safer and Healthier Workplace ......................................24
A.Recommendationsfor Employers.......................................................................... 24
1.Employers Should Fight to Adopt the Modelofthe Bangladesh Safety
Accord.....................................................................................................25
2.Employers should institute new training programs and provide more safety
equipmentto employees............................................................................ 26
B.Recommendationsfor Indian Government........................................................... 27
1. Force Employers to Provide More Training for Employees and Upgrade Their
Equipment................................................................................................................. 27
2.Increase ESIC and Labor Department Collaboration Regarding Industrial
Injuries...................................................................................................................... 28
4. Create Greater Bifurcation ofHealth and Safety Regulations Based on
Factory Size.............................................................................................................. 30
3. Ratify ILO Convention 155................................................................................ 32
C.Campaign Advice for SLD...................................................................................... 33
1.Advocate for Implementation ofthe Above Government Recommendations. 34
2.Initiate a"Reliable Source" Campaign............................................................... 35
3. Conduct an AuditofIndustrialInjury Statistics Audit as Compared with
Doctor Interviews..................................................................................................... 36
4. Provide Worker Peer to Peer Health,Safety and Technical Training in the
Sector......................................................................................................................... 37
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................38

Appendix
Appendix A-Interview Transcripts
1.Anonymous,ER Doctor,ESIC hospitalin Manesar
2.Rohit Berri,Assistant Director ofIndustrial Health and Safety("Inspector"),
Ministry ofLabor and Employment
3. Rajesh and RajKumar,Injured Auto Factory Workers,RDC Imports
(accompanied by copies ofRajKumar's ESI registration details and FORM
16)
4.Santosh Gupta,Injured Aluminum Factory Worker,Kiran Udhyog
5.Vishweshwar Rai,Injured Plastic Factory Worker,Unknown(accompanied
by copies ofhis private hospital medical records,ESI registration details,and
FORM 12)
6.Supriya Sharma,Scroll article, Your car has been built on an assembly line of
brokenfingers
Appendix B- Relevant Labor Department Forms
1.FORM 12
2.FORM 18
3.Inspection Checklist
Appendix C-SLD litigation against RDC documents
1. RTI Application and Response regarding RDC accidents
2.RTI Application and Response regarding ESI for RDC workers
3. Collective Complaint and Supplement
Appendix D- DGFASLI Statistics
Appendix E-Electronic Files
1.Santosh Gupta and Vishweshwar RaiInterview Recording
2. Rajesh and Rajkumar Interview Recording
3.Photos

Assembly Line ofBroken Fingers 1
Introduction
In April of2013,a factory building in Bangladesh collapsed and killed at
least 1,100 workers.l In the wake ofthis catastrophe,the United Nations set up a
committee to ensure families ofthe dead or injured workers were compensated.2
The committee estimated that the cost ofdoing so would be $40 million. As oflast
year, however,it had raised only $15 million3,indicating the shameful reluctance of
factory owners and foreign retailers to help those devastated by their greed.
Unfortunately,this was not an isolated instance. It is axiomatic that every year
tens ofthousands oflives are shattered throughout the world due to preventable
occupational hazards.
A prime example ofthis unfortunate truth is the Manesar Auto Industrial
Belt near New Delhi,India. Between the years of2000 and 2004 alone,the Indian
auto component industry grew from USD 3.9 Billion to USD 6.7 Billion.4 There was
also estimated to be approximately 160 global auto giants with international
purchasing offices in India by the year 2010.
Unfortunately,the consequences ofthis rapid economic success are the ever-
increasing prevalence of human rights abuses.The pervasiveness of under- and
non-payment ofwages,violations ofthe Contract Labour Act,failures ofemployers
to pay into the Employees'Provident Fund,lock outs or other abuses of workers for
organizing,etc., has been the focus ofsignificant and ongoing documentation by the
Society for Labor and Development("SLD").~
As a result ofbecoming proactively involved in litigation against RDC Steel
and Allied Services("RDC"),SLD teamed with the International and Comparative
Rights Law Practicum — a winter intersession program ofthe UNLV William S.
Boyd School ofLaw and Jawaharlal Nehru University — in an attempt to more fully
understand the occupational hazards that threaten the health and safety of
innocent workers in Manesar.
1 Retailers Face Tough Decisions After Bangladesh Factory Collapse, HUFFINGTON POST(May 12,
2013, 10:02 AM),http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/retailers-Bangladesh-factory_n_3262
515.htm1.
2 One Year After Rana Plaza, N.Y.TIMES(Apr.27,2014),http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opin
ion/one-year-after-rana-plaza.htm1?_r=1.
3 Id.
4 Indian Manufacturing Industry Technology and Prospects, UNIDO.ORG 38,http://www.unido.org/fi
leadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/Indian_manufacturing_industry_technology_status_and_
prospects.pdf(last visited Mar. 14,2015).
5 Id.
~ See e.g. Societyfor Labour and Development,SLDINDIA.oRG,http://www.sldindia.org/publications.
html(last visited Mar. 14,2015).
Page ~ 1

To that end,this report will:
1, Document occupational hazards in the Manesar auto industry. More
specifically,it will illustrate violations ofthe Employee State Insurance
("ESI")Act and Factories Act(discussed in more detail below)occurring at
RDC and elsewhere in Manesar.
2. Explore how international human rights laws implicated by occupational
hazards violations in Manesar can be invoked not only at the
internationallevel(such as in complaints to Special Rapporteur)but also
at the individual complaint level(such as in SLD's litigation against
RDC).
3. Offer recommendations to the Indian government and employers and
campaign advice to SLD on how they can each contribute to the
progressive realization ofa healthy and safe workplace for all Indian
workers.
4. Provide SLD useful background on India's occupational health and safety
legalframework and enforcement mechanisms.It is hoped this
information will help SLD efficiently use the system to their advantage in
fighting for RDC workers and others.
I.Summary
While India has progressive labor laws,they are clearly not being
implemented effectively. This became apparent through the author's fieldwork in
which we interviewed a number ofpeople with ties to Manesar,an industrial beltin
Gurgaon,India. Work related injuries consistently occur in factories butthey often
go unreported.Even ifthey are reported,however,very little is done to prevent
such injuries from occurring in the future. This is true for a number ofreasons,the
most salient ones being the Indian government's lack ofresources to investigate
every factory. When the inspectors from the Ministry ofLabour and Employment do
inspect factories, however,they often find many health and safety violations of
domestic and internationallaw. Nonetheless,the inspectors often allow the
factories to continue operations withoutimproving their facilities safety due to the
recognition that mostfactories simply do not have the capital to correct the
violations. Furthermore,there is a flawed system for reporting injuries to the
Page ~ 2

Indian government,which results in significant under-reporting ofinjuries.To
correct these problems and minimize occupational hazardsin India,employers,the
Indian Government,and SLD musttake action.
II. Methodology
Three participants in the International and Comparative Rights Law
Practicum —Craig Friedel(UNLV Boyd Law student),Keivan Roebuck(UNLV
Boyd Law student),and Tapan Bhardwaj(JNU graduate student)— authored this
report in collaboration with SLD Attorney,Gunjan Singh to provide a roadmap for
SLD as it begins its work in the area ofoccupational hazards. This report is the
product of[1]significant research and [2]various interviews.
A.Research
As setforth in Part III,the authors first carried out significant research to
gain a firm understanding ofthe current national and international legal
framework designed to secure the health and safety ofIndian workers.
The authors also carefully analyzed a news article written by reporter
Supriya Sharma entitled Your car has been built on an assembly line of broken
fingers that thoroughly documented her experience with RDC workers. The article
wasfound to be remarkably consistent with the author's findings. Accordingly,its
contents have been incorporated into this report as reliable.
Finally,SLD's legalfiles regarding its ongoing litigation against RDC were
also reviewed to provide background on the current state ofthe legal battle against
RDC.
B.Interviews
The authors interviewed s~ autoworkers in two groups ofthree in Manesar.
The first group ofthree workers worked in various plastic and aluminum factories
and related a plethora ofFactories Act violations.The other injured workers
interviewed were currently employed by RDC.B Atthe time we concluded this
~ See Appendix A.6.Unfortunately,scheduling conflicts did not allow the authors to interview Me.
Sharma.
g The RDC workers interviewed wanted assistance in confronting their employer to gain safer
working conditions. However,this avenue was not pursued by the authors for two major reasons.
First,the team lacked any real power or authority with which to bargain with the employer. Second,
there were serious concerns that the employer mightlater seek repercussions against the
Page ~ 3

report,the additional five injured RDC workers documented by SLD in its
complaint9could not be located for interviews. Fortunately,a Manesar union
organizer who knew each ofthe RDC workers wasinterviewed,and he was able to
provide additionalinformation on the plight ofthe RDC workers and other similarly
situated. Finally,SLD Attorney Gunjan Singh wasinterviewed.He offered
background on SLD's currentlegal struggle against RDC and important insights
into how the court system in India functions.
C.MethodologicalSummary
Overall,the six interviews,the news article analysis,the interview ofthe
Manesar union organizer, and the review ofSLD's legalfiles provided a satisfactory
microcosm ofoccupational hazards directly faced by individual auto workersin
Manesar.The significant research on Indian and internationallaw,the interview of
the Assistant Director("Inspector")ofthe Department ofLabour,Health and Safety
Department,and the interview ofthe Anonymous ESIC ER Doctor provided a
broader understanding ofthe systemic issues India must address.
In summary,the report's legal background,findings,and recommendations
are based on the following:
s Significant legal research
s Sup Worker Interviews in Manesar(three from RDC)
s Manesar Union Organizer Interview
s ESIC ER Doctor Interview
s Department ofLabour,Health and Safety Dept,Assistant Director
("Inspector")over Manesar Interview
s Review ofSLD clinic files(2 RDC import complaints,Right to Information
(RTI)applications,ESI work,list ofinjured workers,etc.)
s Interview ofGunjan Singh,SLD Attorney
s Analysis ofRDC Scroll Report
III. Legal Framework
Occupational health and safety is regulated by a complex framework oflocal,
national,and internationallaw. It is important to understand thisframework
because it provides the legal basis for the violations identified in the report's
interviewed workers for attempting to organize. For the same reasons,the authors decided against
attempting to inspectthe RDC premises or interview RDC management.
9 See Appendix C.3.
Page ~ 4

Assembly Line ofBroken Fingers ~
findings.Accordingly,Part A willfirst describe the role ofIndia's constitutional and
statutory laws. Part B will then outline the applicable internationallaws.
A.National Occupational Health and Safety Laws
India has some ofthe most progressive constitutional provisions and labor
lawsin the world.Unfortunately,as the findings in Part IV will demonstrate, many
ofthese good laws are not properly implemented.Moreover,the laws often go
unenforced owing either to a lack ofgovernment regulation and oversight or to a
backlogged and corruptjudiciary or both. Nonetheless,it is the current legal
framework under which organizations such as SLD must operate. Thus,whether
SLD is attempting to use the currentlaws to their advantage or pressing for legal
change,a firm understanding ofthe occupational health and safety laws is a crucial
first step. To that end,the following provides an overview ofrelevant Indian
constitutional provisions and laws.
1. Constitutional Guarantees ofan Employees'Right to Health and
Safety
Article 21 ofthe Indian Constitution guarantees the protection oflife and
personal liberty ofa person. This article was interpreted by the Indian Supreme
Courtin Consumer Education &Research Center Vs. Union OfIndia.l~ The Court
declared that"occupational accidents and diseases remain the most appalling
human tragedy ofmodern industry and one ofits most serious forms ofeconomic
waste." Accordingly,the court held"that right to health, medical aid to protect the
health and vigor to a worker while in service or post retirementis a fundamental
right under Article 21,[and should be]read with ...[the]fundamental human rights
to make the life ofthe workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity ofperson."
Due to India's large population and resulting surplus oflabor,businesses and the
government tend to undervalue human capital. Every industrial injury is more than
a life altering tragedy;it is a huge economic loss.
Furthermore,there are applicable non-judiciable Directive Principles ofState
Policyll that the legislature hasthe duty to apply when passing laws.For example,
Directive Principle 39(e)demands the state to direct its policy towards securing
"that the health and strength ofworkers, men and women,and the tender age of
children are not abused and that citizens are notforced by economic necessity to
l0 1995 A.I.R.922.
11 INDIA CONST. art. 5.
Page ~ 5

enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength." This provision specifically
directs the state to promote the health ofworkers.In theory,this should require the
state when passing laws to ensure the law will promote safe work environments.
This concept isfurther solidified by Directive Principle 41 which directs that
citizens not be"forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their
age or strength." The greater the occupational hazardsin the workplace the less
suited it will be for the vulnerable young and elderly. Unfortunately,economic
necessity alltoo often requires this vulnerable portion ofthe population to take jobs
that put their health and safety in grave danger.
Lastly,and most on point,Directive Principle 42requires the state to secure
that"just and humane conditions ofwork and maternity reliefare provided." As
explained below,none ofthe demands ofthe interviewed workers were excessive.
Eachjust wanted human conditions such as adequate gloves,earplugs, machinery
safeguards,and washrooms.Such accommodations are just and humane.
2. National Statutes
There are two principle Indian laws that attempt to secure the health and
safety ofIndian Workers:[1]The Factories Act of1948 and[2]The Employees'
State Insurance(ESI)Act of1948. The Factories Act outlaws certain occupational
hazardsin order to preventindustrialinjuries whereas the ESI act provides for the
care ofworkers once an industrial accident has occurred.
i. Health Provisions under the FactoriesAct,1948
The Factories Act, 1948(the"Act")is Indian legislation that governs
occupational safety, health,and welfare ofworkers.12 Inspectors who work under
the purview ofthe Labour Commissioner enforce the Act.13 After the recentchange
in the Act redefining the term "Industry,"the Act now applies to factories that
employ 40 or more workers.14 This,in turn,results in the Act not applying to a
significant number offactories. Nonetheless,several provisions ofthe Act are
implicated in the day-to-day activities thattake place in many Manesar factories.
12 7'he Factories Act — 1948, DELHI.GOV.IN, http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_labour/
Labour/Home/Acts+Implemented/Summary+of+the+Acts+Implemented/The+Factories+Act-1948
(last updated Mar.23,2014).
13 Id.
14 Labour's Laws &Rules,HIND MAZDOOR SABHA(Jul. 18,2014),http://www.hindmazdoorsabha.
com/link-details.php?LinkID=18.
Page 16

When it comes to safe working conditions,there are four provisions that are
implicated.Specifically,Section 14 ofthe Act states thatfactories with
manufacturing processes should take care ofproper exhaustion offume and other
impurities.Section 36 states that no worker shall be forced to enter a confined space
in any factory in which gas,fume,vapor,or dust is likely to be present and present
a risk to his or her health. With respect to eye safety,Section 35 provides that
employers must provide employees with goggles or screens to prevent eye injuries.
Moreover,factories shall take proper precautionary measuresin providing for fire
safety,pursuant to Section 38.Such measuresinclude having a safe mean to escape
fire and the necessary equipment to extinguish fire.
Whenever an injury occurs in the workplace,the Act mandates certain
parties to carry out different procedures. Namely,Section 88(1)states that when an
injury results in death or inability to work for a period of48 hours or more,the
employer must report the injury to authorities.In the case ofan injury resulting in
death,once authorities receive the notice, an inspector mustinvestigate the injury
within one month ofreceiving the notice.15 Furthermore,pursuant to Section 88(3),
the State Government has the authority to make rules for regulating the above-
mentioned procedures.
Any factory owner or manager that is in contravention ofthe Act's provisions
is guilty ofan offence and may be imprisoned for up to two years,fined one lakh
rupees,or both.16 Ifthe contravention continues after the conviction,the factory
owner or manager may be fined one thousand rupeesfor each day that the
contravention continues.17 When a violation ofthe Act results in an accident
causing death,the fine must be 25,000 rupees or greater.18 Further,when a
violation ofthe act results in an accident causing serious bodily injury,the fine is
not less than 5,000 rupees.l~ The term serious bodily injury means any injury that
results in the loss of,or permanentinjury to,any limb,sight or hearing.2o
ii. The Employees'StateInsurance(ESI)Act,1948
The Employees'State Insurance Act("ESI Act")is a socialinsurance scheme
that protects workers in a number of different situations.21 It applies to allfactories,
15 THE FAC'rORIEsACT,1948§ 88(2)(1987).
is Id. at § 92.
1~ Id.
~s Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Employees'State Insurance Act, 1948,EMPLOYEES'STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, http://www.es
Page ~ 7

including those owned by the government.z2 To administer the scheme,the ESI Act
creates a corporation known as the Employees'State Insurance Corporation.z3
Other than administering the benefits specified in the ESI Act,it's interesting to
note that the Corporation has the power to promote measures to improve health
and welfare ofinsured persons.24 It can also promote measures for the
rehabilitation and re-employment ofinjured workers.25 The program is funded by a
contribution from the employer and a contribution from the employee.26 The Central
Government is responsible for determining the size ofthe contributions.27
The ESI Act provides for periodical payments to workers and their
dependents in a number ofsituations. First,it provides periodical payments to sick
workers aslong as a doctor certifies their sickness.28 Second,payments are given to
workers who cannot work due to pregnancy.2~ Third,whenever a worker becomes
disabled due to a work related injury and receives certification from a doctor,that
worker is entitled to periodical payments.30 Fourth,when a worker dies as a result
ofa work related injury,then that worker's dependents receive periodical
payments.31 Additionally,the ESI Act pays for medicaltreatment ofinsured persons
and contributes towards the funeral ofany worker who died from a work related
injury.32
B.International Health and Safety Laws
In the occupational hazard context,this reportfocuses on three relevant
international human rights frameworks(1)the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights,(2)the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights,
and(3)International Labor Organization Conventions.Each will be discussed in
detail in the following subsections.
ic.nic.in/esi_act.php(last visited Mar.14,2015).
22 THE EMPLOYEES'STATE INSURANCE ACT,1948 Ch.I,§ 1(4)(1948).
23Id. at Ch.II,§ 3(1).
24 Id. at Ch.II,§ 19.
25 Id.
2G Id. at Ch.IV,§ 39(1).
27 Id. at Ch.IV,§ 39(2).
28 Id. at Ch.V,§ 46(1)(a).
z9 Id. at Ch.V,§ 46(1)(b).
3o Id. at Ch.V,§ 46(1)(c).
31 Id. at Ch.V,§ 46(1)(d).
32 Id. at Ch.V,§§ 46(1)(e),(~.
. _,

1. Universal Declaration on Human Rights
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights33 was promulgated in 1948in
the wake ofWWII by the United Nations and represents the first global expression
ofrights to which all human beings are inherently entitled.It is now considered by
mostinternationallaw experts to be a standard ofinternationallaw and was
foundationalto the drafting ofthe ICCPR and ICESCR.
Article 3ofthe Declaration asserts that"everyone has the right to life,
liberty,and security ofperson." This right is reflected in Art.21 ofthe Indian
Constitution.Yet,preventable industrial accidents are often fatal depriving hard
working men,woman,and even children oftheir very lives. Bonded labor and
dangerously excessive hours stripsthem oftheir liberty. And occupational hazards
constantly threaten their security ofperson.
Much like Directive Principle 42,Article 23(1&3)further declares that
everyone has a right to"just and favorable conditions ofwork...[and]
remuneration... supplemented,ifnecessary, by other means ofsocial protection."As
explained above,just and favorable conditions are setforth by the Factories Act and
E5Iis India's primary means ofsocial protection. The problem is that neither
scheme is faithfully executed.
Finally,Article 24 directs that"everyone has the right to rest and leisure,
including reasonable limitation ofworking hours and periodic holidays with pay."
As discussed in more detail below, many workers are content with working longer
hours with just regular pay.They would not dare demand to be paid for holidays.
Allthey repeatedly yearned for is an occasionaltea break. Is thattoo much to ask?
For many employers the answer appears to be a resounding yes.
Unfortunately,like mostinternationallaw,the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights is too often a roaring tiger with paper teeth.In some instances,
however,ifthe roar —international attention and pressure — is loud enough,that
may be all that is needed to force compliance. In either case,it serves as an
importantidealthat all nations should progressively strive to realize.
33 Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, G.A.Res.217(III)A,U.N.Doc.A/R,ES/217(III)(Dec.10,
1948).
Page 19

Assembly Line ofBroken Fingers '~~1
2.International Covenant on Economic,Social,and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR)
The ICESCR came into being after World War II as an effort to promote
social progress and better standards oflife.34 It is an international treaty,and as
such,it creates obligations that are legally enforceable internationally amongst the
countries that adopted it. Since April of1970,India has been bound by the
obligations setforth in the ICESCR by way ofits ratification ofthe treaty.35
Accordingly,Article6 ofthe ICESCR requires State parties to recognize the
right to work.Included in this right is the opportunity to earn a living by any work
that one wishes.The State must take the appropriate steps to safeguard this right.
Such stepsinclude providing technical and vocational guidance and training
programs.Article 7requires States to recognize the right tojust and favorable
working conditions.It specifically lists safe and healthy working conditions and
rest,leisure, and reasonable limitation ofworking hours.
3.International Labour Organization Conventions
The International Labour Organization(ILO)is an organization that ties
together cooperation between international governments,employers,and workers'
organizations to promote social and economic progress.3~ It has 185 member states
that get together to debate labor policies and adopt standards.37 While India is one
ofthe member states,it has only adopted a selectfew ofthe standards that the ILO
promulgated.38 This is especially true when it comesto ILO standards regarding
occupational health and safety.
Two ILO conventions thatIndia has ratified are implicated by the
occupational hazardsin Indian factories. First, Convention 081,which deals with
Labour Inspection,states that the labor inspector shall enforce legal provisions
relating to safety and health.39 Second,Convention 160,which deals with Labour
Statistics,states that compilation and publication ofstatistics on occupational
34 UN General Assembly,International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights, 16
December 1966, United Nations,Treaty Series,vol.993,p. 3.
35 Core International Human Rights Treaties, Optional Protocols &CoreILO Conventions Ratified
by India, NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,INDIA http://nhrc.nic.in/documents/india_ratificatio
n_status.pdf(last visited Mar. 14,2015).
3s How theILO Works,INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION,http://www.ilo.org/globallabout-the-
ilo/how-the-ilo-works/lang--en/index.htm (last visited Mar.14,2015).
3~ Id.
ss Id.
3s Labour Inspection Convention, 1947(No.81)art. 3(1)(a).
Page ~ 10

injuries shall use the latest standards and guidelines established by the IL0.40
While India tries to comply with these conventions,they fall short ofdoing so, which
will be demonstrated in the PartIV.B.2 below.
It is also worth noting that Convention 155,which deals with occupational
safety and health,has not yet been ratified by India.The convention requires
employers to ensure that the machinery and equipment are safe and without risk to
health,41 to ensure chemicalsubstances are without risk to health,42 and to provide
adequate protective clothing and equipment to prevent accidents or adverse effects
on health.43
Many of Convention 155's provisions are already in force at the national level
through the Factories Act,1948.The convention has not been ratified, however,
because it applies to all industries and all workers whereas the Factories Act is
applicable only to a smallfraction ofworkers.
IV.Findings
The authors'fieldwork in India revealed two main obstacles in India that
must be overcome to ensure worker health and safety. First,there are several
occupational hazards occurring in workplaces because the factories are not
complying with domestic and international laws.Second,the mechanism to report
injuries is flawed and can be improved.Accordingly,Part A will document the
occupational hazards observed by the authors and describe how each violates
domestic and internationallaw.Subsequently,Part B will elucidate the lack of
regulatory inspections in India and the flaws ofthe work injury reporting system.
A.Occupational Hazards and Injuries:Violations ofDomestic
and International Law
The following subsections will discuss SLD's efforts to make an auto
component manufacturing company in India a safer working environment.It will
then discuss the stories oftwo workersfrom the same company,as well as the
experiences of workersfrom different auto companiesin the same region ofIndia.
Thereafter,this report will depict how the workers'stories demonstrate violations of
domestic and internationallaw.
4o Labour Statistics Convention,1985(No.160)art. 1,2.
41 Occupational Safety and Health Convention,1981(No. 155)art. 16(1).
42 Id. at art. 16(2).
43 Id. at art. 16(3.
Page ~ 11

1. Case Study:R.D.0Imports
i. Background on SLD'sFightforRDC Workers
SLD was made aware ofsignificant violations ofthe Factories Act of1948
resulting in amputation offingers ofat least eight RDC Steel and Allied Services
("RDC")workers. They filed one complainton behalfofMr.Rajesh which also
outlined various violations occurring at the RDC factory.44 A supplemental
complaint making the Labour Department aware ofan additional eight incidents
where RDC workers had fingers amputated by press machines was also filed45.
Fig.1-RDC workers usepowerpressessuch as these
resulting in serious crush injuries to fingers
By filing an RTI
Application46,5LD also pushed
the ESIC Inspector,Mr.A.K.
Garg,to investigate whether the
employees were registered under
ESI as per the Employees
Insurance Act.Since the ESIC
inspector notified RDC it would
be coming to ensure ESI Act
compliance,RDC(and its labor
suppliers)enrolled the workers
in ESI before the inspector
arrived.47
SLD also filed an RTI application to see whether,as per law,RDC had
reported the occupationalinjuries documented by SLD.48 Unsurprisingly,the
response to the application revealed that RDC had not reported any ofthe
accidents.49
44 See Appendix C.3.
46 Id.
47 Ultimately,SLD was able to accomplish its goal ofhelping RDC workers get ESI. However,the
factthatSLD had toforce RDC's hand by involving Mr.Garg,an ESIC Inspector,is a prime example
ofthe structural challengesfacing workers.
4s Id.
Page 112

Assembly Line ofBroken Fingers ~~
ii. Specific RDC Worker's Stories
Two RDC workers,Rajesh and Rajkumar,described their working conditions
at RDC imports.50 They both worked on machines that press metal sheets into a
componentfor a car.51 Once the metalsheets have been pressed,the workers then
have to stick their hands in to pull the component out.52 The machines have no
sensors that detect whether a human's hands are in the pressing area.53 Further,
there is a button that must be manually pressed in order to trigger the machine.54
Both Rajesh and Rajkumar stuck their hands in at the wrong time and had their
hands smashed by the machine,resulting in their fingers being amputated.55
After the injuries,they were both sent to a private hospital to get treated.5G
Then,after the treatment,they were sent to an ESI hospital for incidentals.57 The
workers suspect that this was done to circumvent the legal reporting requirements
to police.58 Although Rajesh and Rajkumar were happy that they received
treatment,they are saddened by the fact that they have lost their fingers forever.5~
Additionally,Rajesh stated that he was demoted due to his injury, and that RDC
refuses to give him back his old job.~~
Rajesh and Rajkumar stated that they work about ten hours a day.~l They
also said that workers often complain to management about occupational hazards,
but the owner ofthe factory will not listen.62 During one occasion,an employee
began filming an occupational hazard on his phone to establish credibility and
someone alerted the owner.63 The owner then went up to the employee,slapped
him,kicked him out,and fired him.64
5o Rajesh and Rajkumar, Occupational HazardsInterviews(Craig Friedel & Keivan Roebuck eds.,
Tapan Bhardwajtrans.,2015);See also Appendix A.3(providing summary ofinterview);Appendix
E.2(providing the recording ofthe interview).
51 Id. at 2.
52 Id.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Id.
5G Id.
5~ Id.
58 Id.
5s Id.
so Id.
sl Id. at 1.
~2 Id.
ss Id.
sa Id.
Page ~ 13

Fig.2- Rajesh Fig.3- Rajkumar
2. Other Workers'Problems Not Limited to Machine Press Operators
We also had the opportunity to interview a Plastic Factory Worker named
Vishweshwar Rai.65 He told us that he works 12 hours a day and only takes one or
two days offper month.~~ He also said that he sometimes works double and triple
shifts,or 24 hours or 36 hours straight.~~ He told us that once workers get injured
and receive medicaltreatmentfrom ESI,there is a 50% chance ofthem getting
rehired.~8 Moreover, he said that he treats abouttwo injuries per week and the
workersface verbal abuse whenever they fail to meet their targets.6~ The workers
are also exposed to fumes in the factory and are provided with no masks or
protection.70
Finally, we interviewed an Aluminum Factory Worker who described his
working conditions for us.~l He stated that at his work,about 600-700 people use
four toilets.72 He also stated that hot aluminum once splashed him in the eye and
caused injury to his eye and surrounding eyelid.73 Aluminum injuries were not very
~5 Vishweshwar Rai, Occupational HazardsInterviews(Craig Friedel & Keivan Roebuck eds.,Tapan
Bhardwajtrans.,2015);See also Appendix A.5(providing summary ofinterview);Appendix E.1
(providing the recording ofthe interview).
ss Id. at 1.
~~ Id.
sa Id.
G9 Id.
70 Santosh Gupta, Occupational HazardsInterviews(Craig Friedel & Keivan Roebuck eds.,Tapan
Bhardwajtrans.,2015).See also Appendix A.4(providing summary ofinterview);Appendix E.1
(providing the recording ofthe interview).
71 Id. at 1.
~z Id.
~3 Id.
Page ~ 14

common,however,as he only saw two injuries in the past five or six years.74
Nonetheless,they can be rather severe,as one ofthe injuries involved a co-worker
accidentally dumping hot aluminum over his head and putting him in a state where
he was unable to work for the rest ofhis life.75
r.
Fig.4- Vishweshwar Rai
3. Major Violations
Fig.5- Close-up of Vishweshwar Rai's Hand
After our interviews with workers,the Inspector,and the ESIC doctor, we
found severaloccupational hazards in the factories ofManesar that violate domestic
and internationallaw.The following table details the violations:
Law/Obli ation How is it violated? It's a violation because...
Article 7ofthe . Press machines that employees operate do employers are not creating
ICCESCR not have sensors. a safe and healthy work
• Workers do not receive adequate safety environmentfor their
gear to assist them in their duties. workers.
• Workers receive no noise protection.
• The gloves that employees receive
deteriorate after about three hours. They
may be provided with a replacement pair,
but the are limited to two airs er shift.
Section 14 and 36 of Workers are exposed tofumes while they employers force workers to
the Factories Act, work. be in confined spaces where
1948 fumes are present and do
not properly dispose ofthe
fumes.
~4 Id.
~5 Id.
Page 115

Section 38 ofthe There are no fire escape routes marked on there are inadequate
Factories Act,1948 the walls. meansfor dealing with
Little to no equipment to extinguish a fire. fires.
Nofires rinkler s stems.
Section 35 ofthe Employees do not receive any eye Section 35 mandates that
Factories Act, 1948 protection when dealing with dangerous employers provide eye
materials. protection.
Article 7ofthe Workers are exposed to electrical hazards it indicates that the
ICESCR such as water near open connections and factories are not safe and
provided no rubber mats. healthy work
Inadequate lunch and tea breaks. environments.
Inadequate washroom facilities.
Little training ofoperating procedures.
Nofirst aid boxed.
No onsite doctors.
Section 88(1)ofthe Employers circumvent reporting injuries to Section 88(1)requires
Factories Act,1948 the Ministry ofLabour and Employment employers to reportinjuries
by sendinginjured workers to private to appropriate authorities.
hos itals instead ofESI hos itals.
ILO Convention 081 Ministry ofLabour and Employment ILO Convention 081 states
inspectors often finds health and safety that the labor inspector
violations ofIndian law,but allows the shall enforce legal
factories to continue operations without provisions relating to safety
correcting the violations.This is because and health.
the inspectors understand that the
factories do not have the necessary capital
to correct the violations.
B.Regulation and Reporting ofOccupational Hazards and
Injuries
As the immediately preceding PartIV.A demonstrates, violations ofthe
Factory Act's health and safety provisions are commonplace. Thisis for two main
reasons. First,India lacks an effective preventative regulatory mechanism
including routine inspections and fines to prevent accidents.Second,there is a lack
ofreporting and accountability once an industrialinjury has occurred.
Page 116

1. Regulatory Mechanism:Inspections,Fines,and Adjudication
i. GeneralBackground on the Central Government Regulatory
Mechanism Provided by theILO
The following information from the ILO provides a useful starting point to
understanding the occupational health and safety regulatory mechanism in India at
the central government level:~s
LabourInspection Structure and organization:The central government
and the Ministry ofLabour oversee the formulation ofnational policy and
legislation, while the Labour Departments ofIndia's 28 States and seven
Union Territories are responsible for implementing and enforcing the
Factories Actthrough their factory inspectorates.
Meanwhile,the Directorate General,Factory Advice Services and
Labour Institutes(DGFASLI)— an agency ofthe central government —
advises on the formulation ofnational health and safety policies for factories
and docks and liaises with the state factory inspectorates on implementation
ofthe Factories Act.
The Ministry ofLabour and Employment is responsible for
formulating and administrating laws and regulations relating to labour and
employment...
Departments)responsiblefor LabourInspection:At a central level or
sphere,the Directorate General,Factory Advice Service and Labour
Institutes(DGFASLI)carries out inspections related to occupational safety
and health issues.Also at a centrallevel the ChiefLabour Commissioner
(CLC)also known as the Central Industrial Relation Machinery(CIRM)is
responsible for enforcing labor legislation related to working conditions. Both
the DGFASLI and the CLC are attached offices ofthe Ministry ofLabour &
Employment.At a state level,the Inspectorates ofFactories under the control
ofeach State Labour Departments enforce the Factories Actin their
respective states.77 Different inspectors carry out safety and health
inspections and those related to labor issues.
Visits andfunctions: Most inspections are conducted after receiving a
complaint or in cases where it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of
workers.Since 2008 and to reduce the number ofroutine inspection,
76 India,INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION(May 29,2011),http://www.ilo.org/labadmin/info/W
CMS_156047/lang--en/index.htm.
77 See infra Part IV.B.l.ii.
Page 117

undertakings employing less than 40 workers are required to submit a self-
certificate certified by a chartered accountant.
Sanction and administrativeprocesses:Inspectors'sanctioning powers
are limited tofilingprosecution complaints in the courts oflaw.Sanctions for
violations oflabor laws provide for fines and/or imprisonment.Under the
Building and other construction Workers(RECS)Central Rules,1998 an
inspector is empowered to issue warnings to employers regarding the safety,
health or welfare ofbuilding workers. No other labor law providesfor
issuance ofwarning by the inspector.Although the law does not specifically
grant discretion to the inspectors to give warnings and advice instead of
launching prosecution... there is a practice followed to issue warnings to
those offenders who are first-timers and who rectify the irregularities within
a given timeframe.
Inspectorscan also issue a prohibition order when in construction
sites, buildings,factories or mines work is performed in such conditions that
are a danger to life safety ofthe health ofthe building workers or to the
public, until measures have been taken to remove the cause ofthe danger to
the inspector's satisfaction.
The Director GeneralofInspection in the CentralSphere is authorized
to exercise the powers ofan inspector as well as a quasi -Judicial authority,
and is empowered to impose fines on the offending employers.
Atfirst glance the above central government mechanism appears to be
comprehensive. However,as PartIV.A explains above,the current mechanism is
not providing sufficient oversightin the area ofoccupational safety. Some ofthe
systemic problems with the current system are addressed in Part V.
ii. Haryana Regulatory Mechanism
The Haryana Labor Department consists oftwo separate wings —the Labor
Wing(DGFASLI state counterpart)and the Factory Wing(CLC state counterpart).
The Labor Wing"endeavors to ensure expeditious settlement ofthe disputes by way
ofencouraging bi-partite negotiations(Management &Workers)and entering into
tri-partite negotiations(Management,Workers &Labour Department)."78 Disputes
which do not get settled are referred to one of nine Labour Courts/Tribunalsfor
adjudication including three in Faridabad.,twoin Gurgaon,and one each in
78 Activities ofthe Department,LABOR DEPARTMENT HARYANA,http://hrylabour.gov.in/page.php?mod
ule=pages&pid=4,(last visited Mar. 14,2015).
Page 118

Panipat,Rohtak,Ambala and Hissar respectively.79 Their principalfunction is to
adjudicate upon industrial disputes referred to them by the Government besides
claims ofdues against employers submitted by the workers.80 These Courts are
headed by Presiding Officers ofthe level ofAdditional District and Sessions
Judge.81
The only readily available information regarding the function ofthe Factory
Wing is that it"conducts inspections from time to time under various labor laws"
and is responsible for licensing and approval offactory building plans.82
Fortunately, Rohit Beri,the Assistant Director ofIndustrial Health and Safety,
Labor Department Haryana("Inspector")with jurisdiction over Manesar(including
RDC),provided additional insights into Haryana's Factory Wing.The Inspector
explained the Factory Wing is the technical side ofthe Labor Department consisting
ofengineers who inspect factories for health and safety violation ofthe Factories
Act. The inspectors file complaints based on their inspections and these are
processed by the Labor Wing which,as explained above,focuses on conflict
resolution and adjudication.
The hierarchy ofinspectors ofthe Factory Wing is asfollows:
s Joint Directors:Inspects factories with >1000 workers
s Deputy Directors:Inspects factories with between 500-1000 workers
s Assistant Directors:Inspects factories with <500 workers
Each type ofdirector is given a specificjurisdiction with the size ofthe
jurisdiction increasingfrom Assistant Director to Joint Director to account for the
larger number ofsmaller factories.
The Inspector is responsible for[1]inspecting all registered factories [2] and
investigating all non-fatal injuries(ifthe injury is fatal then the Deputy Director
willinvestigate).
When inspecting factories,the inspectors use a comprehensive checklist of
laws with which the factory must comply.83 However,Rohit Beri admitted that
smallfactories are not usually able to comply with all ofthe requirements.
Recognizing that were he to strictly enforce the current laws many ofthe small
factories would go out ofbusiness and all the workers would lose theirjobs,the
Inspector focuses on five common violations as per Labor Department policy:
~s Id.
so Id.
si Id.
82 Id.
83 See Appendix B.3.
Page 119

1. Fire Hazards(e.g. no sprinkler systems,fire extinguishers,etc.).
2. Electrical Hazards(e.g. Water near electricity,lack ofrubber mats,
open wires,etc.).
3. Lack ofLifting Machine Experts. Normal workers are not properly
trained to operate heavy lifting machinery,such as forklifts,leading to
accidents.Such operators should be trained experts.
4. Heavy Machinery Hazards(e.g.old or budget machinery that lack
proper safety equipment such as motion sensors). Notably, power presses
lead to a significant number ofinjuries —especially to fingers(e.g. RDC).
5. Lack ofFactory License (i.e.illegal factories that are not properly
registered with the state). Importantly,notice before inspection,as per
protocol,is not required for unlicensed factories.
Second,when an inspector becomes aware ofan occupationalinjury,they
must go investigate the accident at the factory,take pictures,review medical
records, write a report,and potentially submit a complaint within 15 days.
Inspectors become aware ofinjuries in one oftwo ways:[1]Self-reporting ofthe
injury by the employer on FORM 18 and [2]"reliable sources". FORM 18 requires
information regarding when,where,why,and how the injury occurred.84
Anecdotally,the Inspector noted that he investigates only 20-25 FORM 18
industrialinjuries per year!This is likely due to the factory owner disincentives to
self-report.85 What constitutes a"reliable source"is undefined,but the Inspector
said that often times it will be the media,NGOs,or even the workers themselves
that call his office to report they were injured (rare).
2. Treatment and Reporting Mechanism
When the regulatory mechanism described above fails to prevent an
occupationalinjury,two things should occur:[1]the worker should be provided
treatment and [2]the injury should be reported to the government so it can take
appropriate steps to preventfuture injuries at the same factory and compile
accurate national occupational injury statistics.
84 See Appendix B.2.
85 See infra Part V.B.3.
Page ~ 20

i. Treatment ofInjuries and ESI
When an individualis injured at the workplace,they can either go to an
ESIC hospitalifthey were enrolled in the Employee State Insurance(ESI)program
or to a private hospitalifthey were not.
To participate in ESI,the employers must have enrolled their employees and
contributed 4.75% ofthe employee's wages to the program with the employee
contributing another 1.75%.Once enrolled,ESI provides insured workers and their
family members medicaltreatment.There is no ceiling on expenditure for the
treatment on payment ofa token annual premium ofRs.120.Other benefits ofbeing
enrolled in ESI include:
(a)Sickness Benefit(SB):70% ofwages payable to insured workers
during the periods ofcertified sickness for a maximum of91 days in a year.
To qualify,the insured worker is required to contribute for 78 days in a
contribution period of6 months.Extended and enhanced benefits are also
available in certain situations.
(b)Maternity Benefit:Full wage payable for three months and
extendable by an additional month on medical advice subject to contribution
for 70 daysin the preceding year.
(c) Temporary or Permanent Disablement Benefit:90% ofwages
payable for as long as disability continues or indefinitely depending upon the
extent ofloss ofearning capacity do to the disability as certified by a Medical
Board.
(d)Dependents'Benefit:90% ofwage payable to the dependents ofa
deceased insured worker in cases where death occurs due to employment
injury or occupational hazards.
(e)Funeral Expenses:Rs.10,000 is payable to the dependents or to the
person who performs last rites immediately upon entering insurable
employment.8~
According to an anonymous ER doctor working at the ESIC hospitalin
Manesar,90% ofworkersin the Auto Industry have ESI and that number is
growing.S7 Although this statistic and sentiment may be highly exaggerated,every
autoworker interviewed was enrolled in ESI.
Nonetheless,several interviewed workers asserted that,even though they
were enrolled in ESI,they were first taken to a private hospitalfor medical
8G Benefits,EMPLOYES'STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,http://www.esic.nic.in/bene~its.php (last
visited Mar.15,2015).
$' See Appendix A.1.
Page (21

treatment and then directed to seek the other ESI benefits later. This common
practice is likely due to the requirement that when the hospitalfinds outthe
individual was injured at the workplace they mustfill out FORM 16,which
identifies the factory where the injury occurred. The doctor was unable to explain
whatfollow up,ifany,was undertaken once the form was filled out proclaiming
that it wasthen"out ofhis hands."The doctor could only say that the police would
be called ifthe hospital suspected or had knowledge thatthe injured individual was
involved in or a victim ofa crime(e.g. assault ofemployee by their employer or their
agents).The government recommendations discussed in Part V attemptto offer
solutions to this dilemma.
Those without ESI are not allowed to be treated at ESIC hospitals unless it is
an emergency. This condemns workers making Rs.100 per day to either seek
treatment at a private hospitalincurringlakhsin medical bills or to self-treat the
injury. For this reason,the ESI doctor proclaimed that"ESI is God to them [the
workers enrolled]" because there is no way that they could otherwise afford the high
cost ofmedicalcare. This troubling issue can only be resolved through the
expansion ofthe ESI program to cover workersin smaller factories and all
industries.
ii. Mechanismsfor Reporting ofInjuries
Once an occupation injury has occurred,the injury should be reported to the
government so it can take appropriate steps to preventfuture injuries at the same
factory and compile accurate national occupationalinjury statistics. The only
current mechanism to report injuries to the governmentis FORM 16(filled out at
ESIC hospitals)and FORM 18(to be submitted to the Labor Department by the
employer). Injuries reported on FORM 18 are investigated by the Labor
Departmentinspectors as discussed in more detail below. However,according to
the interviewed inspector,no investigation is made by Labor Departmentinspectors
into those injuries reported on FORM 16. In other words,there appears to be a
complete lack ofcommunication between ESIC and the Labor Department.
Thislack ofcommunication has also likely led to extensive underreporting of
occupational injuries. Hospitals are at the front lines and see many occupational
injuries every day. Each ofthese should be reported using FORM 18 by the
employer,butthe Inspector asserts he only receives 20-25 per year!This appears
consistent with the extremely low official government occupationalinjury statistics.
Page (22

According to the most recent accessible statisticsfrom DGFASLI,there was a total
ofonly 29,837 injuries(1433fatal)in all ofIndia in 2011.88
In contrast,the United States, with a population ofonly 300 million and safer
workplaces,had over 3 million occupationalinjuries reported by private employers
alone.This resulted in an incidence rate of3.3cases per 100 full-time workers,
according to estimatesfrom the Survey ofOccupationalInjuries and Illnesses(SOII)
conducted by the U.S.Bureau ofLabor Statistics.89 This meansthat India,with a
population of1.2 billion(four times the US)and less occupational health and safety
enforcement,could actually have over 12 million occupational injuries per year- not
the 29,837 claimed in official government statistics.
The fact that occupational injuries are extremely underreported in official
government statistics is confirmed by the anonymous ESIC ER doctor interviewed.
One doctor in one hospital asserted he treated between 250 and 500industrial
injuries in one year!Iftrue,according to governmentinjury statistics this would
mean that there are between 60-120 doctors in all ofIndia(29,837injuries divided
by 500 and 250injuries per doctor respectively). Even accountingfor the fact that
an ESIC ER doctor in the Manesar auto industrial belt would treat a
disproportionate amount ofoccupationalinjuries,it is clear thatthe official
government statistics are absurdly low.
More discussion on the subject ofbarriers to reporting can be found in
PartV.B.2 along with a recommendation that may circumvent some ofthese
obstacles.
C.Summary ofFindings
The following are the cumulative findings ofHealth and Safety violations:
s Press machines and other heavy equipment lack safety sensors or
other safeguards
s Workers receive insufficient safety gear(e.g. no ear protection, gloves
wear out after three hours ofa twelve hour shift,etc.)
s Excessive exposure tofumes
s No fire escape routes or sprinkler systems
s Electrical hazards such as water near open connections and no rubber
mats
88 See Appendix E,Table 8.1.Also available at http://www.dgfasli.nic.in/infol.htm.
89 News Release,BUREAU OFLABOR STATISTICS U.S.DEPARTMENT OFLABOR(Dec.4,2014),http://
www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_12042014.pdf.
Page 123

s Lack ofsufficient lunch and tea breaks
s Malpayment ofwagesleading workers to have to work an unhealthy
amount ofovertime
s Lack ofadequate washroom facilities
s Factory plans not registered
s Lack adequate training or posting ofoperating procedures
s No First Aid box or on site doctor available
The following systemic problems have also been deduced:
s Although most workers were enrolled in ESI,employers first take
employees to private hospitals and then direct them to ESIC Hospitals
to obtain long term benefits in a ploy to avoid industrialinjury
detection by the state.
s There is little or no communication between ESIC and the Labor
Department's Health and Safety Inspectors such that injuries go under
reported.
s Smallfactories cannot afford to comply with the current health and
safety regulations.
V. Moving Toward a Safer and Healthier Workplace
As Demonstrated in PartIV,India has significant room for improvement
with regard to occupational hazards. Changes must be made.This report will
propose changes that Employers can make in Part A below. Further,it will suggest
changesthat the Indian Government should make in Part B,and suggestionsfor
future advocacy by SLD and partner organizations in Part C.
A.Recommendationsfor Employers
To make significant changes in the workplace,employers need a large
amount ofcapital. Unfortunately,asthe Ministry ofLabour and Employment
recognizes, most ofthe factory ownersin India do not have the capitalto make their
facilities safer. As such,an approach must be adopted that would allow the Indian
factories to acquire necessary capital.Then,once the factories have the capital,they
can purchase safer machines,provide more safety equipment,and implement better
training programs.
Page ~ 24

1.Employers Should Fight to Adoptthe Model ofthe Bangladesh
Safety Accord.
The companiesin India should adopt an approach to upgrading factory
equipment similar to that ofthe companiesin Bangladesh. Namely,after the
horrific collapse ofa factory in Bangladesh in 2013,Wal-Mart Stores,Inc., Gap Inc.
and VF Corp.found a new way to secure low-cost loans to upgrade factories.90 They
did so byforming an Alliance and forming an agreement with the International
Finance Corporation to provide loans backed by a corporate guarantee.~l Factories
have thus been able to take on loans at interest rates that are less than one-third of
the market rate.92 The loans,in turn,are being used to purchase safety equipment
such as fire doors,safety lights,and automatic-sprinkler systems.~3IfIndian
factories were also able to take out low interest loans to upgrade equipment,then
there likely would be significantly less injuries in the workplace.
However,Indian factories should go one step further and make
multinationals commit to a system similar to that ofthe Bangladesh Safety Accord.
The Bangladesh Safety Accord is comprised oflegally binding agreements between
multinationals and trade unions by which all parties strive to make workplaces
safer.~4 Employers should also seek legally binding agreements not only between
the multinationals and trade unions,but also between the multinationals and
themselves.This would ensure accountability and reliable support, unlike the Wal-
Mart/Gap scheme in Bangladesh.95
Furthermore,Indian employers should accept and implement the policies and
procedures ofthe Bangladesh Safety Accord. Namely,employers should allow for
independent inspections supported by a program developed by multinationals.9~
Moreover,they should agree to public disclosure ofall ofthe inspection results as
well as their plans to correct violations.~~ Employers should also create
so Alliance Sets Plan to Finance Bangladesh Factory Upgrades, THE WALLSTREET JOURNAL(Dec. 5,
2014 10:00 AM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/alliance-sets-plan-to-finance-Bangladesh-factory-
upgrades-1417791607.
sl Id.
s2 Id.
ss Id.
~4 About the Accord,ACCORD ON FIRE AND BUILDING SAFETY IN BANGLADESH,http://bangladeshacc
ord.org/about/(last visited Mar.14,2015).
95 Comparison:The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh and the Gap/Walmart
Scherrce, CLEANCLOTHEs.oRG,http://www.cleanclothes.org/resources background/comparison-safety-
accord-and-the-gap-walmart-scheme(last visited Mar.14,2015)(One significant problem with the
Wal-Mart/Gap scheme is that there is no mechanism to ensure that the multinationals will continue
their support both financially and otherwise.).
ss About the Accord,supra note 94.
Page 125

democratically elected committees within their factories to report on safety issues
and compliance.9~
Similarly,there appears to be incentive for multinationals to push factory
owners to pursue these low interest loans.Such incentive comes in the form of
avoiding backlash from various human rights organizations. For example,
organizations such as the United Students Against Sweatshops stage
demonstrations against multinationals to improve compliance with safety standards
in their factories.99 The pressure ofsuch organizations sometimes will lead
companies to either improve conditions or move to another country.loo Ifcompanies
move countries, however,they are often criticized for doing so and faced with paying
higher costs.lol They are also forced to wait several years before new working
relationships with new suppliers are established.lo2 For these reasons,
multinationals have already begun pressuring factories to upgrade equipment.lo3
But for those factories that refuse to pay the price to upgrade equipment on their
own,multinationals should promote the backing oflow interest loans.
2.Employers should institute new training programs and provide
more safety equipmentto employees.
Factory owners should also provide more safety equipment and training for
employees.For instance,at one automobile component factory,an employee
described that when he joined the company,the company did not provide him with
any training as to how to operate a machine.l~`~ Instead,the company stated that he
did not need training because he had already operated a similar machine at a
previous company.lo5 The similar machine,however,was different in that a handle
and not a pedal operated it.los While this difference may seem minute,the employee
ended up amputating his left thumb,l~~ leaving the question ofwhether proper
training may have prevented the injury.
~~ Id.
sa Id.
9s Retailers Face Tough Decisions After Bangladesh Factory Collapse,supra note 1.
ioojd,
ioi Id,
iozjd,
l03 your car has been built on an assembly line of broken fingers, SCROLL(Nov. 30,2014,4:00
PM),http://scroll.in/article/692477/Your-car-has-been-built-on-an-assembly-line-of-broken-fingers.
ioa Id,
io5 Id.
ios Id.
ion Id.
Page ~ 26

Moreover,companies refuse to purchase safety equipment at the expense of
worker safety. One way to minimize injuries would be to purchase metalclamps to
extract the finished goodsfrom the press machines.108 The cost ofthe clamps is
about Rs 25,1os which is rather cheap when compared to upgrading to machines
with sensors. However,many factories refuse to purchase the clamps because it
slows down production.11o Employers should understand that worker safety is more
important than maximizing production.As such,they should spend the extra time
and money to train employees on how to use equipment,as doing so is not a very
difficult task and can prevent injuries. Likewise,employers need to spend money to
either purchase safety equipmentfor employees or upgrade to safer machinery.
Perhaps the only way to make employers do these things is through government
regulation, which will be discussed in the next section.
B.Recommendationsfor Indian Government
There willlikely be no change in India ifthe Indian government does not play
a bigger role in promoting workplace safety. Accordingly,the following subsections
will describe different actions that the Indian central and state governments should
take.
1.Force Employers to Provide More Training for Employees and
Upgrade Their Equipment
The Indian Government should force employers to upgrade to safer
equipment and provide more training for workers.One way in which it can do so is
by creating a mechanism to hold factory owners accountable ifthey failto provide
proper training or safety equipment.We propose that the mechanism should be the
use of more inspectors with increased authority to carry out domestic and
internationallaw.
The Indian Government should hire more inspectors to investigate
compliance with domestic law and internationallaw.In addition,the inspectors
should be given more authority to fine the factory owners.After we interviewed the
Assistant Director ofIndustrial Health and Safety,we learned that there were not
enough inspectors to investigate factory accidents. Furthermore, we learned that
factories with less than 40 workers would now not be investigated due to the recent
ios Id.
ios jd.
uo Id,
Page ~ 27

change in Indian law.For these reasons,the Indian Government should seek to
employ more inspectors to make sure thatfactories are complying with domestic
law,particularly the Factories Act,1948.
Further,the inspectors should be able to increase the fines thatfactory
owners must pay ifthey are not complying with domesticlaw or internationallaw.
The amount ofthe fine,ideally, would be set at an amount that would incentivize
the factory owners to invest money in making their factories safer. Ifthis is
economically unfeasible,then inspectors should be able to fine the factory owners in
away in which they mustspend the amount ofthe fine on making their workplaces
safer. Either which way the factories getimproved,the important thing to note is
that the Indian Government will likely have to be the impetus for such change.
Moreover,the Indian Government has incentive to ensure that Indian
infrastructure is upgraded.11l Although India provides some ofthe cheapestlabor in
the world,it does not have the proper buildings,roads,ports, and power networks
that many companies desire.112 This,in turn,minimizes its competitive advantage
and makesit less attractive to companies.113 As a result,companieslook to China,
which hasinvested significantly more in its infrastructure, while still providing
cheap labor.114 Thus,to make India a more attractive place for business,it should
want to make factoriesimprove their conditions.
Finally,another practical way to ensure that factories use safe machinery is
for the central government to directly regulate factory machine manufactures. The
central government,for example,could require all power presses manufactures in
India to include safety censors.
2.Increase ESIC and Labor Department Collaboration Regarding
IndustrialInjuries
As explained previously,the only way an occupational health and safety
inspector at the Labor Department investigates an industrialinjury is if[1]the
factory self-reports the accident on FORM 18115 or[2]the inspector becomes aware
ofit through a"reliable source". However,ifthe goalis to investigate unsafe
workplaces where workers are injured,then it would be logicalfor the inspector to
also look into instances where the worker claims he was injured at work on FORM
111 India us. China:The Battlefor Global Manufacturing,BLOOMBERG BUSINESS(Nov.6,2014),
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-06/india-vs-dot-china-the-battle-for-global-
manufacturing.
112 Id.
its Id,
iia Id.
lls See Appendix B2.
Page 128

1611 when he or she receives treatment at an ESIC hospital. For this to occur,the
government must statutorily or administratively require greater information
sharing between the Department ofLabor and ESIC.Specifically,ESIC should be
required to share FORM 16 data with the Labor Department.Both FORM 16& 18
require essentially the same information.11? Both forms require information
regarding[1]name offactory/employer.[2]the industry,[3]Address ofpremises
where accident happened,etc. Thus,ESIC FORM 16 could act as a "reliable source"
that instigates and investigation by the inspector.
The current system relies too heavily on the altruistic idea that employers
will self-report injuries that occur at their factories by submitting FORM 18 to the
Labor Department. Submitting the form will open the employer up to liability and
inspections that will likely resultin fines or costly safety improvements. Since the
employers have these disincentives to report,there is drastic under-reporting of
accidents.The inspector said he receives only a few FORM 18s per month!lis
However,employers are more likely to fill out FORM 16 since it is the difference(as
per ESIC hospital protocol)between a worker receiving treatment at an ESIC
hospital or not. This is true due to basic human decency and the fact that
treatment may be costly for the employer at a private hospital whereasifthey have
ESI they can receive treatment for the worker at a public hospitalfor almost
nothing.
This system is not perfect either, however.The ESIC ER doctor noted that
FORM 16 is often filled out by middlemen who bring the injured worker to the
hospital(since the workers usually cannot read)and they often predictably mark
that the injury was due to the worker's own negligence. Nonetheless,this
designation offault is nothing more than an assertion ofinnocence and should be
viewed suspiciously by any inspector who ultimately should decide the issue of
fault.The crucialinformation FORM 16 would provide inspectors is how many
accidents are occurring at what factories.Ifmany workers are coming into the ESIC
hospital with industrialinjuries from the same factory,this would be a strong
indication("reliable source")that the factory should be inspected and the injuries
investigated.
Another issue is that when employers learn that ESIC FORM 16 may lead to
inspections,they may stop bringing workers to public hospitals and optfor private
ones. For this reason,to truly implement this alternative accident reporting
mechanism,laws must be passed that require private hospitals to also fill out
FORM 16(or similar form)and submit them either to ESIC or the Department of
Labor directly. The law should impose a heavy penalty ifanother source leads to an
investigation that reveals a worker received treatment at the private hospital
without submitting the form to the proper authority.The fine must be significant to
act as a true deterrent. Despite these difficulties, having an additional mechanism
lls See Appendix B.1.
11~ See Appendix B.1-2.
lls See Appendix A.2.
Page 129

for industrial injuries to be reported to the Department ofLabor for investigation is
desirable.
Ideally,the complete and successful implementation ofthis governmental
recommendation would ensure that ifany person sought medicaltreatment at a
public or private hospital and indicated the injury occurred at the workplace a
FORM 16 would be filled out and the information gathered would be communicated
to the Labor Department(obviously,in reality, many injuries will still evade
governmental detection but the number should be significantly reduced). This
would benefit the Labor Departmentinspectors by highlighting which factories are
contributing to the most accidents. With this knowledge,the inspectors would be
able to inspect and investigate the most prevalent offenders and thus more
efficiently reduce the number ofaccidents.
Notably,the recommendation'simplementation would also have the added
benefit ofsupplying the Labor Departmentextremely more accurate statistics on
industrialinjuries ifthe information was properly compiled in a database.
4. Create Greater Bifurcation ofHealth and Safety Regulations
Based on Factory Size
According to Inspector Rohit Beri,it is economically impossible for small
factories to comply with the current health and safety regulations. He suggested
that were he to strictly enforce the law he would have to shut down a multitude of
smallfactories and thousands ofjobs would be lost. Thus,ifstrict enforcement of
the current regulation by all inspectors were to immediately come into effect across
India,the number ofjobs lost would likely be significant. Moreover,the natural
consequence ofsuch enforcement would be to significantly raise the cost ofdoing
business in India.In turn,this translates into future jobs being lost to other
countries. For these reasons,progressive realization ofthe health and safety
standards commensurate with India's economic growth is the most practical and
realistic- but admittedly not the most idealistic- path forward.
Unfortunately,economic reality makes the right ofall Indian workers to have
work collide with their right to a healthy and safe workplace.It is the author's
opinion that the former right is logically paramount to the later for it is better to
have miserable work that puts your life at risk than to have no work with which to
gain the means to sustain your and yourfamily's livelihood leading to starvation
(although some might philosophically disagree).
Certain programs,such as those discussed in Part V.A.1(e.g. partnership
with multinationals)ease the consequences ofthis dichotomy by rich corporations
offering cheap capital to smallfactories to increase occupational health and safety.
Ultimately,however,such programs are a drop in the bucket and mostsmall
factories competingfor work ultimately perceive that strict health and safety
Page ~ 30

Assembly Line ofBroken Fingers •1 s
compliance is not in the factories best interest since complying with all the current
regulations would put them out ofbusiness due to a lack ofcompetitiveness. The
goal then is to make it in their bestinterest.But How?
The answer is bifurcation ofhealth and safety regulations based on factory
size combined with strict enforcement ofthose new progressive standards and
higher fines. Asoutlined by Inspector Rohit Beri,this would require the
government to establish a tri-partite committee ofgovernment,employer,and
worker organization unions members to attemptto find the most economically
efficient safety standards for smallfactories.This could be accomplished by focusing
on those standards that have the greatest industrialinjury prevention ability per
rupe spentto implement. For example,as discussed above,instead ofrequiring
smallfactories to have pneumatic power presses with built in sensors which cost Rs
20lakh as opposed to mechanical power presses which cost Rs81akh,sacrifice
minimalsafety and allow them to have the cheaper machines as long as they install
double hand safety mechanism for RS 28,000 or provide magnetic clampsfor Rs
25.119
Admittedly,bifurcation meanslower standards for smallfactories than for
larger ones. However,the lower standards will allow inspectors to do something
they have never done—strictly enforce the occupational health and safetylaws—
without costing millions ofjobs. Additionally,realistic and obtainable standards
willincentivize unlicensed factories to become legitimate and thus come within the
regulatory scheme. Why?Every day factory owners weigh the economic risk of
being caught without a license(and the resulting fines)againstthe cost of
compliance. Under currentlaw,all too many owners decide proceeding without a
license is the more prudent economic decision for their business(sadly most only
think oftheir wallet and not the wellbeing ofworkers). However,ifyou lower the
cost ofcompliance by efficiently lowering the standards to maintain the greatest
level ofhealth and safety as described above and combine strict enforcement with
increased fines for operating without a license the sensible choice then converts to
compliance. Once a threshold level ofcompliance is achieved,then the occupational
health and safety standards can be incrementally raised.
Admittedly,research has not revealed that such a method is sanctioned by
the ILO. This is likely due to the fact that the ILO promulgatesideal rules and
bifurcation clearly is not ideal- it is a pragmatic solution to economic realities.
However,the ILO does recognize that progressive realization is sometimes required.
lls See Appendix A.6.
Page 131

Ultimately,whether one finds bifurcation acceptable is likely a result one's
philosophical approach to human rights. In the international human rights
community there appears to be a divide between those who believe the best way to
help abused workers is through a focus on the labor relations process and those that
believe the focus should be on labor market outcomes.12o This author believes in the
latter approach and agrees with Cornell Professor Gary S. Fields when he explains
that"ifpushed too far,too fast,the active promotion oflabor standards[via an over-
emphasis on the labor relations process] may hamper employment,reduce
competitiveness,and impede growth [i.e. lead to negative labor market outcomes].
The poor workers ofthe world cannot afford this."
In the end,this recommendation may be viewed as controversial and overly
focused on economic[i.e. labor market outcomes]as opposed to human suffering
[the focus ofthe labor relations process]. Sadly,this may be true from an individual
worker currently in a smallfactory point ofview. However,on the macro level the
recommended policy ofprogressive realization is likely a more efficient way to
achieve widespread compliance with international occupational health and safety
standards. Currently,progressive laws are not being enforced because the
"symptoms"ofgreater enforcement(e.g. labor market outcomes such as mass
layoffs,fewerjobs)are seen as worse than the "disease"(occupational hazards).As
PartIV.A demonstrates,the current system clearly is not working. It is the
author's opinion ofthat this is due to the current progressive occupational hazard
laws not being commensurate with India's level ofeconomic development. In the
long run,it is the author's beliefalong with that ofInspector Rohit Berithat
progressive realization through bifurcation will prevent the most amount ofhuman
anguish.
More research is clearly needed in this regard.Unfortunately,it is simply
beyond the scope ofthis report.
3. Ratify ILO Convention 155.
The reason why India has not ratified ILO C155 is because India's laws
governing occupational health and safety(e.g. Factories Act, Mining Act,etc.)are
applicable to only a small portion ofthe Indian workforce. ILO C155,on the other
hand,applies to all branches ofeconomic activity and to all workers. As the Indian
Department ofLabor explains:
izo For a more in depth discussion on this ongoing-debate,see Gary S.Fields,Labor Standards,
Economic Development,and International Trade, CORN~LL UNIVERSITY ILR COLLECTION (1990),
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=conference.
Page ~ 32

It has always been the practice in India that we ratify a Convention when we
are fully satisfied that our laws and practices are in conformity with the
relevantILO Convention.It is now considered that a better course ofaction is
to proceed with progressive implementation ofthe standards,leave the
formal ratification for consideration at a later stage when it becomes
practicable.lzl
In an apparent deviation from this general practice,in the 36th Session ofthe
Tripartite Committee on Conventions(COC)in 2012,the recommendation in the
agenda was made to ratify C155 with reservations that excluded both the
Agriculture and Services Sectors since the current Safety and Health laws do not
adequately protect those sectors to conform to the convention.122 Unfortunately,
extensive Internet research failed to revealthe minutes or results from the COC.
It is unclear whether ratification with significant reservations would have a
positive effect on the realization ofoccupational health and safety. Excluding the
Services and Agriculture industry allows India to ratify C155 without implementing
positive changes in order to do so.Thus,it may simply be a governmental tactic to
quail the mounting internal and international pressure to ratify the convention
while maintaining the status quo.
On the other hand,ratification,even with reservations,requires the Indian
government to"formulate,implement and periodically review a coherent national
policy on occupational safety and Health and Environment at the workplace."123 It
also cracks the door open for the ILO to more closely monitor the situation.This
added emphasis may positively intensify pressure for change.
Ideally,India would change its laws to apply ILO C155 protections to all
workers and ratify without reservation. Ultimately,however,given the current
circumstances ratification with reservations is likely better than no ratification at
all. Thus,the Indian governmentshould actively pursue this course ofaction.
C.Campaign Advice for SLD
SLD has already made significant strides in helping RDC workers by helping
them become enrolled in ESI and initiating industrialinjury complaints.The
following campaign advice is meant to build on this progress and suggest advocacy
stepsfor SLD and allies goingforward with work on these issues. The authors hope
121 India &ILO,LABOUR.GOv.IN,3,http://labour.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Divisions/
childlabour/Website%20-%20Copy%20(1)%20gyanesh.pdf(last visited March 15,2014).
122 Thirty Sixth Session ofthe Tripartite Committee on Conventions,GOVERNMENT OFINDIA,
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT,19-20(September 25,2012), http://labour.gov.in/upload/
uploadfiles/files/latest_update/what_new/5056a62160211Agendaof36thCOCNIC.pdf.
123 Id,
Page ~ 33

the advice will be a springboard for impactful action that will provide meaningful
changesfor the workers ofIndia in this sector.
1.Advocate for Implementation ofthe Above Government
Recommendations.
A firm understanding ofwhat both state and central governments should be
doing to improve the lives ofits workforce isimperative for any worker
organization.It is hoped the above background on the relevant occupational health
and safety lawsin Part III and the documentation ofFactory Act violations and
explanation ofthe current governmentalregulatory and reporting mechanisms in
PartIV have served to solidify and expand SLD's knowledge concerning
occupational hazards.
Part V.B then introduced severalchanges the government could implement
to improve the lives ofworkersincluding[1]hiring more factory health and safety
inspectors at both the state and central level,[2]overhauling the current industrial
injury reporting mechanism to create greater ESIC and Labor department
collaboration,and [3]creating greater bifurcation ofthe health and safety
regulations based on factory size,and[4]ratifyingILO convention 155.
Since each ofthese recommendations must be implemented by the central
and state governments,SLD's role is to put pressure on the government to take
stepstowardstheir progressive realization. Obviously,direct pressure on the
Indian government would be a dangerous game to play for any grassroots
organization such as SLD—especially with Prime Minister Modi's Bharatiya Janata
Party in power. It is one thing to publicize corporate follies and quite another to
highlight governmentfailures.
Consequently,to the extent possible,SLD's goal should be to formulate
tactics thatfocus public outcry against occupational hazards and injuries occurring
in corporate factories.This in turn,could lead to an unsatisfied electorate that
demands the government —particularly at the local and state levels — to take
action against the corporations by implementing the above recommended reforms.
Such indirect pressure allows the government to save face regarding its own
regulatory and reporting failures by acting as the champion ofthe people against
the evil corporations. For example,continual and widespread outcry over
occupationalinjuries occurring at corporate factories could eventually lead to
societal discontent(e.g. strikes,crime,etc.)that government officials attempt to
quail bypassing legislation to hire more health and safety inspectors or increase
health and safety violation fines.
Page 134

With specific regard to ILO C155,SLD should join other workers
organizations and unions in seeking its ratification. For example,formal
observations regarding C155 were submitted to the ILO by both Bharatiya Mazdoor
Sangh(BMS)and the Centre ofIndian Trade Unions(CITU)in 2008.124 However,
neither has been responded to by the Indian Government.IfSLD would like to get
involved in supporting this important ratification,teaming with these powerful
unions would likely be a helpful place to start. Furthermore,SLD may reach out to
Joint Secretary ofthe Ministry ofLabour and Employment GOI,Mr.A.C.Pandey,
who has chaired meetings to explore the possibility ofratification ofILO C155 at:
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg,
New Delhi-110001,
011-23710239(office)
acpandey@nic.in
2.Initiate a"Reliable Source" Campaign
Aslearned from the interview with the Manesar Inspector,in order for an
investigation into an occupationalinjury to be launched without the employer self-
reporting using FORM 1$,the Labor Department Health and Safety Inspector must
become aware ofthe injury through a"reliable source". The inspector explained
that there is no firm definition ofa"reliable source". However,he revealed that,the
media,worker organizations/unions,and even individual phone calls from workers
can all qualify.125
Thus,SLD could initiate a grassroots campaign to provide Inspectors with
these "reliable sources". As discussed,the factory-inspector ratio is absurdly high.
It is impossible for inspectors to verify all the licensed and unlicensed factories in
theirjurisdiction are safe and healthy.Thus,the benefit ofproviding"reliable
sources" is that it helps inspectors identify which factories contain the most
egregious occupational hazards.This,in turn, will greatly enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness and ofthe inspectors.
Providing the inspectors"reliable sources" could be accomplished in several
ways.First,SLD could launch an education campaign that strives to provide the
workers the name and contact information ofthe Health and Safety Inspector in
124 Observations made by employers'and workers'organizations ofIndia,INTERNATIONALLABOUR
ORGANIZATION,http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:14101:0::N0:14101:P14101_COUNTRY_
ID,P14101 AR,TICLE_N0:102691,19(last visited March 15,2015).
125 Seesupra Part IV.B.l.u.
Page ~ 35

charge ofensuring the safety oftheir particular factory. This would likely involve
conducting workshops,passing out/posting flyers in a particular inspector's
jurisdiction,and disseminating the information to other worker
organizations/unions that could then share it with their members.An injured or
disgruntled worker could then anonymously(asto protect themselvesfrom
employer repercussions)call their inspector to notify him or her ofthe violations
occurring at their workplace. The Inspector interview revealed that on several
occasions he considered a simple phone callfrom a factory worker a sufficiently
"reliable source"to go out and inspect the factory. Justimagine iften or more
workers called regarding the same factory? Ultimately, mass calling campaigns to
government officials such as safety inspectors could be a useful union tactic in a
variety ofcontext.
Second,the workers could notify SLD about occupational hazards at their
workplace and it could then keep a database thatincludes the factory name,factory
location,occupational hazard/injuries, and the corresponding inspector's name
(which could be discovered by cross referencing the factory location and inspector
jurisdictions). SLD could then provide this documentation to the relevant
inspectors since workers organizations are considered "reliable sources".
Third,ifthe Labor Department inspector fails to act on the documentation,
SLD could turn to the media. Supriya Sharma's Scroll article, Your car has been
built on an assembly line ofbrokenfingers,is a prime example ofthe value ofthe
media.12s
Ideally,this campaign could eventually culminate in statutory reform that
requiresfactory ownersto postthe relevant inspector's name and contact
information.
3.Conduct an Audit ofIndustrial Injury Statistics Audit as
Compared with Doctor Interviews
As discussed above,it is commonly understood thatIndia dramatically under
reports the number ofindustrial injuries thattake place within the country every
year. However,there appears to be no solid statistical proofthat this is true.
Instead,international organizationstend to simply estimate the number ofinjuries
in India using similarly situated country's injury statistics that are more reliable.
To help Indian citizens and the world to more fully understand the extent of
debilitating injuries occurring daily,SLD could initiate an extensive reportin which
12s See Appendix A.6.
Page 136

it randomly selects and survey's hundreds of doctors throughoutIndia(to make it
more representative ofIndia as a whole and statistically useful). The survey would
include asking for estimations ofthe amount ofindustrialindustries they treat
every month. This estimation could be averaged and then extrapolated by
multiplying it by 12(months)and the total number ofdoctors in India. Due to the
extensiveness ofthis project,SLD should seek to partner with other worker
organizations, unions,and universities such as JNU.
Ultimately,it is hoped that such proofwould be a valuable toolto help
convince the United Nations Special Repertoire to come investigate the"Assembly
Line ofBroken Fingers."
4. Provide Worker Peer to Peer Health,Safety and Technical
Training in the Sector
The lack oftechnical training by employersleads to preventable industrial
accidents. For example,in Supriya Sharma's Scroll article she relates the following
disturbingly common experience:
Arvind Kumar is all of19.He lost his left thumb this month while operating
a power press at a company called Antech Engineers Private Limited,which
makes clutches and stands for scooters and motorcycles...
Arvind Kumarjoined the company at the start of November but was not
given any training before he was made to operate the machine."They said I
didn't need it because I had worked on the power press ofanother company
for 6 months," he said."Butthe machine in the previous company was
operated with a handle while the machine at Antech had a pedal."12~
Six months oftraining on a machine without safety equipmentthat is
responsible for thousands ofcrush injuries a year in India alone is clearly
insufficient!
To help alleviate this problem,SLD could help establish a mentoring
program that teams experienced workers in their field with inexperienced ones.
SLD could also ask experienced or even retired workers to share their acquired
knowledge on how to use common high injury machines such as the power presses
responsible for severing the RDC worker's fingers.
Lastly,the Anonymous ESIC ER doctor noted that he will conduct several
health and safety trainings per year as a requirement ofhis public employment.
Likewise,SLD could actively seek out and organize private doctors to volunteer to
do the same.
12~ Id.
Page 137

Conclusion
Although India has adequate laws regarding occupational safety,they are not
effectively implemented.Through our field research, we saw first-hand the effects of
the poor implementation ofIndia laws. Namely,workers are constantly at risk of
injury due to operation ofunsafe machines,lack ofproper training,and inadequate
safety gear.At the core ofthe problem is companies'choice to maximize output at
the expense ofworker safety.In addition,companies often do not have the capital to
make the necessary changes to comply with international and domesticlaw.As a
result,the Indian government will allow factories to continue operations without
correcting legal violations.In order tof~ these problems,there will need to be
action from both employers and the Indian government.SLD,for its part,can
facilitate the progressive realization ofworker safety by implementing the
recommendationsin this report.
Page 138

Interview Transcri isp
1. Anonymous,ER Doctor,ESIC hospitalin Manesar
2. Rohit Berri,Assistant Director ofIndustrial Health and Safety("Inspector"),
Ministry ofLabor and Employment
3. Rajesh and RajKumar,Injured Auto Factory Workers,RDC Imports
(accompanied by copies ofRajKumar's ESI registration details and Form 16)
4. Santosh Gupta,Injured Aluminum Factory Worker,Kiran Udhyog
5. Vishweshwar Rai,Injured Plastic Factory Worker,Unknown(accompanied
by copies ofhis private hospital medical records,ESI registration details,and
Form 12)
6. Supriya Sharma,Scroll article, Your car has been built on an assembly line of
brokenfingers

Occupational HazardsInterviews 1 s
Position:ER Doctor
Employer:ESI Hospitalin Manesar
Gender:Male
Contact:N/A
Interviewers/format:Craig,Keivan,and Tapan(face-to-face)
Summarized by:Craig
Time location:Main ESI Hospitalin Manesar(Jan.4th;limited to 1/2 hour)
Recording File: N/A
1. For whattypes ofworkplace injuries do migrant workers usually seek
treatment at your hospital?
Usually the accidents are work related and involve crush injuries,eye
injuries, heat burns,chemical burns,etc.
a. Can you describe how these injuries typically occur?
Usually the crush injuries are made by machine presses.
b. In your educated opinion,in whattype ofindustries do you see the
mostinjuries?
Most injuries come from smallfactories. Bigger factories such
as Honda and Maruti have better safety and less industrial accidents.
c. Are mostinjuries minor or severe? Curable or incurable?
Question not asked due to time constraints.
d. What are the usualcauses ofworker injuries? Machines? Chemicals?
Falling?
See Question la.
e. Can you describe some ofthe most severe industrialinjuries you have
encountered as a doctor?
The most severe injuries are those involving the spine and
pelvis. Usually these injuries are fatal before they reach him at the
hospital. The doctor sees around 2-3 ofthese types ofinjuries per year.
f. What are the major contributors to workers injuries(forced
overtime/sleepiness, un-maintained machines,lack ofsafety
equipment,worker negligence,etc.)?
The doctor blamed both unsafe working conditions and the
worker's negligence.He wasfrustrated with workers who refuse to
Interviety:Anonymous ESIC ER Doctor Page 1

Occupational Hazards Interviews
wear safety equipment in circumstances where it is offered by the
company.
In your opinion,does ESI properly function for the worker? Are there any
limitations on care for those using ESI as compared to those with private
health insurance or paying out-of-pocket?
The Doctor believed that ESI was working very well. He claims that
90% ofworkers in the Auto Industry have ESI and that the number is
growing.Those without ESI are not allowed to be treated at
ESIC hospitals unless it is an emergency(like USA cannot
turn away patients in these circumstances). He claimed that
in many instances"ESI is God to them [the workers]" because
there is no way that they could otherwise afford the high cost
of medical care.
3. When a patient identifies the workplace as the location
ofthe injury,are you required to report this to any agency?
How is this done? Ifthere is a form,may I see it? Ifyou notice many injuries
occurring at a particular workplace,is there any mechanism to report this to
authorities(e.g.inspectors)?
According to our best understanding,the doctor explained that ifa
person comes in with an injury then the police will be called. We were unable
to clarify the exact reason for the call to the police. Explanations between the
interviewers ranged from the police being called to verify the patient was not
involved in crime to only being called ifthe patient invoked criminality as the
cause ofthe accident(e.g. employer assault as opposed to an industrial
accident).
The doctor also mentioned that ESIC requires FORM 16 describing the
cause ofthe accident to be filled out. However,since many ofthose injured
are illiterate, often times the supervisor who brought the worker to the
hospital will fill the form out for them.
When pressed as to whatfollow up there was after the completion of
the form,the doctor waived his hand and said that he did not know.It was
then out ofhis hands.
4. According to national statistics(see chart on inspector interview sheet),there
were only 668fatal industrial injuries and 5,983 non-fatal injuries in India in
2009.Do you believe these statistics accurately reflect reality? In your
estimation, whatis the actual number? Why are the statistics inaccurate?
The doctor never outright asserted the
statistics were inaccurate and appeared not to ~ '' '
want to commenton government statistics. ' "'
Would he would say,however,is that he ~ ~ ~
personally saw approximately 20 patients per
week.Outofthe 20 patients, approximately 5-10
Interview:Anonymous ESIC ER Doctor Page 2

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the Manesar Auto Industrial Belt

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the Manesar Auto Industrial Belt

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (15)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the Manesar Auto Industrial Belt

Ähnlich wie Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the Manesar Auto Industrial Belt (20)

Mehr von SLDIndia

Mehr von SLDIndia (8)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Assembly Line of Broken Fingers:A Roadmap to Combating Occupational Health and Safety Hazards in the Manesar Auto Industrial Belt