Kerala Electricity Executive Staff Organisation and Ors. v. Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) and Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016/29TH VAISAKHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 25261 of 2012 (G)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------** **1. UNNIKRISHNAN M., 38 YEARS,** - **(LINE MAN, KSEB), S/O.MOHANRAJ.P.K, RESIDING AT PADAKKARA, KUMBLANGI.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 007.** **2. BIJUMON T.R., 34 YEARS,** - **(LINE MAN, KSEB), S/O.N.R.RAVI, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-682 307.** **3. MANILAL.K.R., 42 YEARS,** - **(LINE MAN, KSEB), S/O.M.R.RAGHAVAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, PALLURUTHY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 006.** **4. UMESHAN, AGED 34,** - **(LINE MAN, KSEB), S/O.MINAN, DEVSOWMPARAMBIL, PALLURUTHYNADA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 006.** **5. SUDHEER.K.R., AGED 43,** **(WORKER, KSEB), S/O.K.R.ROY, RESIDING AT KANNAGATTU HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, PIN-682 006.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (KSEB), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHIBHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 004.** **2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD), O/O.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, PATTOM PALCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.** **msv/** **-2-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No. 25261 of 2012 (G) ---------------------------** **3. CHAIRMAN, KSEB, PATTOM PALCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.** **4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, POWER DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.** *** ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED** **5. KERALA POWER WORKERS' UNITY CENTRE, NATIONAL TRADE UNION OF INDIA (N.T.U.I.), KERALA, SAI VIHAR, TC 26/1837, GPO LANE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR.** *** IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.13.12.2013 IN IA.72/13.** **R1-R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE R5 BY ADVS. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-04-2015 ALONG WITH WP(C) 4557/2013 THE COURT ON 19-05-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **WP(C).No. 25261 of 2012 (G) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: -----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF A KSEB LINEMAN, PRADEEP KUMAR, PUBLISHED IN KERALA POWER WORKERS UNITY CENTRE PUBLICATION, IN JULY 2011. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF A KSEB LINEMAN, PUBLISHED IN KERALA POWER WORKERS UNITY CENTRE PUBLICATION, IN JULY 2011. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF KSEB LINEMAN, AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, REPORTED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTED 3.10.2001. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCIDENT OF A KSEB LINEMAN, SHAJI, WHO IS PARALYZED FOR THE LAST 7 YEARS, PUBLISHED IN KERALA POWER WORKERS UNITY CENTRE PUBLICATION, IN JULY 2011. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCIDENT OF KSEB LINEMAN, JEVI APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 30.8.2011. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 12.7.2011 IN DELHI JAL BOARD VS. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR DIGNITY AND RIGHTS OF SEWERAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS AND OTHER (SCC 2011 (8) 568). EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 22.1.2010 IN ABDUL JABBAR VS. KSEB. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF ONE PAGE OF THE REPORT FROM “WORKERS UNITY”, FEBRUARY/MARCH 2010. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE 'SAFETY MANUAL, 1994' OF KSEB.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.** ==================================== W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ==================================== Dated this the 19[th] day of May, 2016. ## **JUDGMENT** 1.These writ petitions are filed by Kerala Electricity Executive Staff Organisation along with linemen working under the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board” for short). They espouse common cause as to the safety and security of the linemen and workers of Board. 2.Petitioners would submit that, on account of scarcity of staff strength, linemen and other executive staffs have to work about 12 to 18 hours a day and often continuously for 36 hours. They highlight the death of 150 electrical workers due to electrocution while on duty within the last five years. W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:2:- 3.Petitioners point out that working hours of linemen and other workers beyond 8 hours is in violation of Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 as well as Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act, 1956. Further, it is submitted that, the Board has not taken any steps to provide safety and security measures to avoid mishap or accident to the linemen and other workers. It is pointed out that due to the nature of work, necessary safety measures have been provided. 4.The Board's stand is that Standing Orders have been issued by the Board to regulate the service conditions and as per the Standing Orders, working hours may be fixed on spread over basis, if so required by the Board. It is further pointed out that, if any workman is required to work overtime, the workman will be paid wages, in accordance with the terms of settlement. It is further pointed out that, period and hours of work for all classes W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:3:- of workmen will be exhibited in the Notice Board in both English and Malayalam. 5.In regard to the mishap and accident, it is stated that the Board would pay adequate compensation to the legal heirs under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, Kerala State Electricity Board Employees Welfare Fund as well as Personal Accident Scheme. It is stated further that the Board has given instructions to all the workmen to follow the safety measure and use protective equipments like helmet, safety shoes etc. 6.As far as the working hours are concerned, essentially, the matter is covered by the Standing Order. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with such Standing Order, unless the same is questioned before this Court. Further it is open for the Employees' Union to take up the matter before the Board for variation, in accordance with law. However, certainly, all class of workmen shall be W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:4:- intimated regarding the shift and working hours. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4557 of 2013 is having a case that, the practice of exhibiting notice of hours of work of linemen and other electricity executive staff has been discontinued for the past few years. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, the Board shall strictly adhere to the Standing Order and publish the working hours of linemen and electricity executive staff and variation thereon in notice board. - 7.In regard to safety measures, this Court is of the view that, if the matter requires consideration, there is no denial to the fact of death toll taken place in the last five years, which is really alarming. The Board cannot remain oblivious to the large number of death of linemen, while on duty. - 8.This Court solicited the suggestions of petitioners to mitigate the mishap and accident. The petitioners have brought forward W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 -:5:- ## some suggestions, which are as follows: ## _**“ - To direct the presence of Sub Engineer or their supervisors while attending to High Tension and High Risk works:-**_ _The Board has prescribed the functions to be attended by personnel in the Breakdown wing vide B.O.(FM) No.3122/2010(CP/R&P)Plg.1/Model Section/2010-11) dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure I thereof). True copy of the same is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P14 in the Writ Petition. The functions include nine specified functions as shown in Ext.P14. Out of the said nine functions, function No.3 and 7 are high risk duties which cannot be safely carried out by the Line Men/Electricity Workers alone. To ensure safety to such works alone the presence of the Sub Engineers/Assistant Engineers or their superiors should be made mandatory._ ## _**To designate the Assistant Executive Engineers as the “Safety Officer responsible forover all stay of the Mazdoors and Line Men working under the Sections**_ _At present the Board has designated a Chief Engineer at the highest level alone as the safety officer for all the employees of the Board. This does not cater to the micro_ W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:6:- _level supervision of safety aspects of Electricity workers/Linemen at the lowest level who actually bear the brunt of issues relating to safety. A more micro level supervision could be ensured by designating the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer as the “Safety Officer” for the sections under him. The work load of the Assistant Executive Engineer is less than that of the Assistant Engineer or Executive Engineer and so it would be ideal to designate Assistant Executive Engineers as Safety Officers with personal responsibility to ensure the safety of Mazdoors/Linemen under them. At present there is no accountability for fatalities and injuries caused even due to avoidable hazards._ ## _**Extending the sanctioning powers for running of vehicles to attend breakdown works to the Executive Engineers**_ _A serious obstacle to attending to break down works is the limitation that the vehicles cannot run for over 1500175-2000 km per month without the prior sanction of the Chief Engineer at Thiruvananthapuram in each instance. This is not practical. To attend to break down works_ W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:7:- _ladder, earthing rod, earthing chains, sickles, thottis, ropes are often impractically required to those in two wheelers when the four wheelers cannot be used due to exceeding the limit. Especially in rural areas the limit of 1500 km is totally unfeasible. Hence the Executive Engineers should be permitted to enhance the vehicles ranging limit to at least 3000 kms._ ## _**Provisions of adequate safety equipments as ordered by the Board not provided.**_ _In Annexure A2 to B.O(CMD) No.2661/2014 (D(D&S)/ Safety/Safety Materials/Panel of Vendors/2014-15 dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure thereof), true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P15, minimum safety equipments to be provided to the Electricity workers/Linemen have been prescribed. However even this Board order is not followed by the Board or its offices. Sl.No.14 Electrical HVN Contact tester has not even been seen any Linemen/Worker. So also other equipments are not always provided. Hence the 'Safety Officer” to be designated in terms of the suggestion made earlier should be fixed with the liability to ensure_ W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:8:- _that the prescribed equipments are made available in every section._ ## _**Mitigation of Hazard posed by generators fixed in the Consumers premises**_ _One of the most common cases for mishaps and fatalities in the Board (Mazdoor/Linemen) is from the generators fixed in the consumer's premises. At present for fixing a generator in the consumer's premises, only permissions and sanction from the Electrical Inspectorate is required to be obtained. Board has no knowledge of any such installation. Several accidents occur when while attending to breakdown works as after disconnecting supply from the Board side the consumer begins operating the generator. The safety provision for the power from the generator not to flow back to the Board's mains is not often maintained. Therefore the inspecting Linemen/Mazdoor working on the line is exposed to injuries if not fatalities. Hence appropriate steps, including, if necessary by amendment to the Terms and Conditions of Supply should be made to obtain permission from the Board before installation of any_ W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:9:- _generator by the consumer.”_ 9.This Court is of the view that, in formulating safety and security measures, the right of workmen employed by the Board has to be ensured by taking adequate measures. In _**Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B.,**_ **[1996 (4) SCC 37]** the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the obligation of the Government to provide medical facilities to the people and observed as follows: _“The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare State at the federal level as well as at the State level. In a welfare State the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare State. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centres which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail of those_ W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:10:- _facilities. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty-bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21. In the present case there was breach of the said right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 when he was denied treatment at the various government hospitals which were approached even though his condition was very serious at that time and he was in need of immediate medical attention. Since the said denial of the right of Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 was by officers of the State, in hospitals run by the State, the State cannot avoid its responsibility for such denial of the constitutional right of Hakim Seikh. ”_ 10.It may be true that the Board may have financial implications W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:11:- for taking steps for safety measures. This Court is of the view that, the safety measures, now available, is not sufficient as number of death toll would indicate contrary. It is to be noted that safety measures are not a mere matter providing facilities to an employee, but it is rather a measure to ensure the life and security of a person. The right to have such protection is a basic human right. Therefore, every employer is bound to provide adequate measures to protect the life of the employee, if such employment is hazardous in nature. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: i) The Board shall ensure that working hours of linemen and other workers is intimated by publication of the same as contemplated in the Standing Order. ii) No workman or lineman shall be compelled to work without publication of the working hours as W.P.(C)Nos.25261/2012 & 4557/2013 ## -:12:- mandated under the Standing Order. iii)The Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Kerala, is directed to address the issue relating to the safety and security of the linemen and workers, in the light of the suggestions put forward by the petitioners incorporated above, within a period of three months. iv) Necessarily, before taking a decision, the Secretary, Department of Power, shall consult the Board for formulating such safety measures. Safety measures shall be implemented thereafter, without any delay. ## **A. Muhamed Mustaque, Judge.** sl.