Safety Officer Arrested- Protest - Support Required

Dear All,

This is a serious issue in connection with a fatal accident (4 workers died) in a fire accident that happened in the solvent preparation area at TVS Srichakra Tyres Ltd, Madurai, Tamil Nadu. In this incident, the safety officer of the unit has been arrested and charged under 304A (Negligence in act causing death).

This is highly ridiculous because the safety officer has only an advisory role and not enforcing authority (as mentioned in the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules and Factories Act).

Hence, we request all safety professionals to support this issue to prevent the recurrence of such incidents in the future. Please raise this issue.

Thanks & Regards

Dear all,

This is a very serious issue, but arresting the safety officer is not fair. Police should investigate the case clearly to determine the backlog from management regarding safety issues and identify the individuals connected with this accident who have to be arrested.

Dear Manish,

As a matter of fact, the Safety Officer has to insist on the implementation of the observations raised by him regarding safety hazards. If an accident occurs due to negligence, then obviously everyone will be held responsible.

Neglecting and avoiding to perform an act that needs to be done, and performing an act that should not be done, is also considered an offense. The Safety Officer has the responsibility to identify safety hazards and provide necessary instructions to the executing team to rectify any defects. If the execution team is not complying, the Safety Officer has the right to stop the work. In this case, the Safety Officer failed to identify the safety hazard, give instructions for rectification, or ensure its rectification. Hence, the arrest.

Normally, any accident site should be barricaded, and work must be stopped until an inspection is carried out by the Factories Inspector. Only if the Factories Inspector is satisfied with the rectification work, will they permit the work to resume at the accident site.

In the event of a fatal accident, the Police team also visits the accident site to inspect the cause of death. If the Investigating Officer determines that the accident resulted from mere negligence, then Section 304-A of the IPC will apply, and the Factory Manager will have to be arrested. However, if the Investigating Officer concludes that the fatality was due to an accident without negligence, and there are no complaints from the deceased's relatives, then the investigation will proceed under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.

Dear Manish Anand,

It is shocking to hear that a Safety Officer has been arrested for the loss of lives of four workmen in a tyre company in the State of TN. Firstly, the police have acted in haste and should have delved into details and investigated who the occupier of the factory is under the Factories Act, 1948. Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, as introduced by the Amending Act of 1987, defines the occupier of a factory as the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. The Act enumerates that one of the directors is to be the occupier; therefore, any director declared as the "occupier" shall be prosecuted and punished under this Chapter for any offense.

It is the duty of the occupier under the act to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of all the workers while they are at work.

Making the safety officer responsible for the mishap and the resultant death of four workmen is totally unprofessional and unethical. In fact, hundreds of thousands of companies in India do not simply adhere to basic safety norms/guidelines as enumerated in the Factories Act, 1948. Adhering to safety guidelines calls for investments, which factory owners consider as a wastage of money. For such people, money is more important than human lives. What they fail to realize is that the loss of life cannot be compensated by paying a few lakhs of Rupees. After the death of an earning member, the life of his family is thrown into peril forever.

Legislation in India is very effective in holding occupiers responsible for the safety, health, and welfare of the workers, but enforcing agencies lack the "will" to prosecute those responsible for such accidents for reasons best known to all of us. We should have fast-track courts to handle at least such cases where fatal/serious permanent total injuries occur due to unsafe working conditions. Once prosecutions are awarded by fast-track courts, it will instill a sense of fear among the occupiers and encourage the implementation of safety norms in the plant to make lives safe and secure.

In addition to this, safety training/awareness should also be made core fundamental values of every institution, and safety personnel should play a proactive role. I believe safety awareness is crucial, and small measures can make a significant difference.

Regards,

Rakesh Pd Srivastav

Dear All,

If someone should be arrested for this incident, then it has to be the Factory Manager/Occupier because the safety of employees is the prime responsibility of the occupier.

As it is truly said, the Safety Officer is only an advisory body and cannot be arrested and charged. This is really ridiculous, and we all must oppose this.

Regards,
Hansa

Dear Hansa,

I am not in agreement with you because if the advice given by the safety officer is not followed by the execution team, the Safety Officer has to raise the issue to the management level. Even if the management is not following the advice given by the safety officer, then he must continuously remind the safety hazards to the execution team, with an additional line stating that it may endanger the lives of the workers/employees. Even after the reminder, if the execution team/management does not respond, then he can present the same to the police officials and even the court to safeguard himself.

Safety officers have a major responsibility to identify hazardous situations and rectify them. In fact, safety officers must insist on the implementation of observations regarding hazards. If an accident occurs due to negligence, then everyone involved, including the Safety Officer, Factory Manager, and Occupier, will be held responsible.

Dear All,

As per the Factory Act Section 117, no suit, prosecutions, or other legal proceedings shall lie against a person for anything that is done in good faith or intended to be done under this act. The Safety Officer has been working in good faith under the Act, so the arrest of the Safety Officer would be illegal. The Safety Officer has the right to file an FIR against the arresting body for defamation.

Regards,
B.K. Mishra

Dear All,

I feel that if such practices continue, no one will ever dare to become a safety officer. They work for good reasons, and FIRs are filed against them, making them feel guilty and criminal. A person who has never entered a police station, and who works to prevent accidents, has to face criminal proceedings for a death due to negligence that is not actually his.

One question comes to mind: if one person dies in a road accident (not in a factory), and if proper speed breakers were in place, it could have been prevented. If proper sign boards like "sharp turn ahead" were in place, it could have been prevented. If the person was wearing a safety helmet, he may not have died. Now, who will the police file an FIR against?

1. The government that installed speed breakers after the accident?
2. The government that displayed the signboard after the accident?
3. The traffic police/RTO who did not catch him for not wearing a helmet?

The safety officer reports to the factory manager. His duty is to investigate the accident and advise management on various preventive measures to avoid further accidents or change procedures if necessary. External agencies like the police should not question the safety officer; they should always question the Senior General Manager or any other higher authority persons nominated in the factory and investigate the accident properly. If management holds the safety officer responsible, the safety officer should provide all his records to the police, such as advice given to management that was not followed or was taken lightly.

I strongly believe that strong legal rules should be established to safeguard all safety officers working to prevent accidents who are not considered gods.

Regards,

Aquadefonte

Dear Bhaskar,

Yes, the Safety Officer is responsible morally, but legally the Factory Manager/Occupier is responsible.

Regards,
Hansa

Dear Manish,

Whether the arrest is valid or not, it is an unfortunate incident to read about.

I disagree that the safety officer has only an advisory role. Without his certificate, ensuring that proper safety instructions and equipment are provided, no employee can even enter the site. Without his consent, no operation takes place on any site. Every safety officer, before supporting this call, should also check the facts.

1. If it was maintenance work, was the work carried out with safety department consent and approval? If it was regular work, was the work procedure approved by the safety department?

2. Are there records of the safety trainings delivered to respective employees?

3. The news talks about a fall from 75 meters. Was there no safety fence or harness? Did the employee detach the harness or jump over the fence?

4. Was there no provision of an automatic/manual fire extinguishing system in that fire-prone zone? Was the location of it not proper?

All the above things fall under the responsibility of the safety officer. If they are followed properly, then it is very unlikely that such an accident has happened.

This is just an arrest, and let's hope that he could produce proper justifications of his work. If he fails to produce these proofs, then he should be held legally responsible for the accident. It cannot be forgotten that some people have lost their lives, and the possibility is that it may not be their fault.

Dear All,

As a safety officer, I know the circumstances under which a safety officer has to work in an organization where productivity is the main criterion. Many times, work is carried out without involving the safety officer, and sometimes, when a safety officer intervenes, higher authorities speak about calculated risks. The word "safety" only gets priority in some top-grade MNCs in India where safety is incorporated into every step. For instance, you have to seek clearance from the safety department for vendor registration, purchase orders, job order releases, and other than permits for day-to-day operations.

So, my point is that before blaming any safety officer, people have to ensure the system is foolproof. The Factories Act and Factories Rule clearly state that a safety officer is in no way responsible for any unwanted incidents.

My full support is with those who are fighting in favor of the safety officer.

Thank you all,

Anjan Bandyopadhyay

Dear all,

It is true that most of the companies in India just keep a safety officer for namesake and do not follow any safety rules or procedures up to the mark. We don't know what the scenario is in this case. A safety officer also has responsibilities in the workplace. As a safety professional, he must identify the hazards and inform the management. Additionally, he should develop control measures in collaboration with the execution team and recommend the same to be followed during work. If there is a deviation from following those rules, he should escalate the issues to top management in an official manner. These actions protect a safety officer if anything goes wrong. This can only be done by a professional safety officer. If he fails to do the same, then he is also a guilty party.

The occupier or the manager under the Factories Act is the person to be prosecuted. However, the establishment would always favor the rich and powerful if a scapegoat can be found. So, it is not unusual to arrest and remand the "lowly" Safety Officer. This situation occurred very recently in a power plant in Tuticorin as well.

Thanks,
Sanu Soman

The safety officer's responsibility is to ensure that those things are installed in an appropriate manner. If it is not in place, then he should recommend the management to install the same. If he fails, then he is also one of the persons among others to be arrested. His duty is not just simply standing and watching the work.

Dear All,

It is unjust to arrest the Safety Officer. For lack of administration and law and order deterioration, should we arrest the Chief Minister/Prime Minister or other high-ranking officers?

Dear All,

It is really not good and fair at the part authorities, but still I would like to say that first of all the case needs to be investigated, whether or not the safety officer advised for some improvement in the same regard. The safety officer should be responsible if he/she did not turn his/her ears towards the negligence due to which the accident occurred. Legally, he may not be responsible, but he shall be considered at fault in that case.

Arresting a safety officer without any inquiry is ridiculous and we must protest. I am fully against this incident.

Regards, Inderjeet Singh, "Born to lead."

The duty of the police in cases of construction accidents is to investigate the causes and not to arrest any company officer because all disciplinary action for the workers and officers in connection with the performance of their duties rests on the company. They are hired only to implement company policies, rules, and regulations. The arresting of a Safety Officer is illegal unless the Safety Officer is intentionally or criminally liable for the offense or if it is included in the special laws of your country.

The safety officer participates only in the investigation to correct hazards and prevent recurring accidents at the job site. If an accident occurs and it is discovered that the company violated and did not comply with the safety and health regulations for workers, this could lead to the cancellation of licenses and charges for civil liabilities. When a safety officer is found negligent in their duty, the company can punish them according to the violations, such as dismissal.

It is not the police's role to punish the safety officer as they work under the company. Therefore, the police accuse the company, not any individual worker, and the company punishes the worker as per protocol.

FFB.

Yes, if someone fails to do his basic duties as mentioned by the law of the land, they can be prosecuted.

In 2009, an incident happened in one of the reputed companies in the UAE. An employee working on the roof fell and died. The project director, the engineer, and the safety officer were convicted for six months imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation of three hundred thousand Dirhams to the next of kin of the deceased. The judgment stated that these responsible persons failed to stop the activity during a strong wind, which caused the fall and death of the worker.

Later, they appealed to the higher court, which rejected the lower court verdict, citing some technical failures on the part of the worker.

Arresting of safety personnel due to an incident and blaming negligence is not the right way to address the occupational incident probation. As per the BOCW Act and the latest amendment to the Factories Act:

1. The occupier or person in charge of a specific activity is responsible for the safety and health of their workers.
2. The responsibility of a safety officer is to identify hazards and communicate them to the in-charge/employee. If a supervisor or in-charge fails to communicate these hazards, they are accountable.

Find proof of unsafe activities communicated by the Safety Officer in training/toolbox/unsafe reports of the plant and present this evidence to the legal authority.

There is a recent amendment in Factories Rule 5 & 6 (I don't have a copy of it) that emphasizes the responsibility of hazard communication and accountability. Produce this information to the relevant authority.

Obtain copies of the HSE policy, plan, JHA committed by the company stating who is responsible and provide these documents.

Approach DGFLSI and the Ministry of Labor for any disruptions in the process.

IN MY VIEW, USING THIS approach can help ensure better handling of safety incidents.

Please, can anyone tell me about the section and rules defining the qualifications of a safety officer as per the Factory Act and Gujarat Factory Rules?

Whenever there is negligence in duty and an accident occurs, with only the safety officer and the operations manager being held liable, what is the role of the employer/occupier? We express our protest regarding the arrests and urge the government to release them unconditionally.

Thanks & Regards,

Sumit Kumar Saxena

Yes, why not. A safety officer is appointed in units where there are 1000 or more workers employed. Regarding qualifications, they should be as follows:

Qualifications:
(a) A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a Safety Officer unless he:
(i) Possesses a recognized degree in any branch of engineering or technology and has practical experience working in a port or similar place in a supervisory capacity for a period of not less than two years; or possesses a recognized degree in physics or chemistry and has practical experience working in a port or similar place in a supervisory capacity for a period of not less than five years; or possesses a recognized diploma in any branch of engineering or technology and has practical experience working in a port or similar place in a supervisory capacity for a period of not less than five years;
(ii) possesses a degree or diploma in industrial safety recognized by the Central Government in this behalf;

Provided that, in the case of a person who has been working as a Safety Officer in the industry or any institution for a period of not less than three years on the date of commencement of these regulations, the Chief Inspector may, subject to such conditions as he may specify, relax all or any of the above said qualifications as per the Factory Act of 1948.

Thanks & Regards,

From,

Sumit Kumar Saxena

Dear all,

I have been working as a safety officer in India for the past 10 years. During this time, I have worked in more than five companies. Unfortunately, in all these companies, safety professionals are appointed merely to comply with government or factory regulations regarding safety, rather than to genuinely safeguard the employees. Some management teams do not listen to the suggestions or observations provided by safety officers. In situations where a safety officer tries to enforce safer work practices with the execution team or management, they may face transfer or even termination. I have witnessed this firsthand.

Most construction companies prioritize completing work on time, often overlooking safety considerations. When a safety officer intervenes to ensure safety, it can lead to project delays due to the lack of safety awareness among the team on site. In many construction companies, the safety officer reports to either the project manager or the site in-charge, making it challenging for them to halt work for safety reasons. Without a proper reporting channel, safety officers become mere figureheads, giving the illusion that the company prioritizes safety.

Safety officers can only recommend safe work practices. If the company lacks a system to implement these recommendations or if the execution team does not prioritize safety, the only remaining option for the safety professional is to resign from the company. This situation is unfair.

If a safety professional fails to communicate their observations or suggestions to the execution team, supervisors, or site in-charges, they may be held responsible for any accidents that occur.

Dear all, if you have any suggestions on how to better protect a safety officer's job, please share them with me.

Email: sujeeshtm068@gmail.com

Thank you.

Dear all,

Whenever such incidents happen in any plant, the police first visit the site and file an FIR against the accused person. According to the police, the person responsible for the safety of the plant is the safety officer, irrespective of what has happened on that day or what safety precautions were taken. If it is a fatal accident, without investigating, they file an FIR on the safety officer. It is the factory inspector who understands the role of the safety officer, and in his investigation, mostly, he files a case against the factory manager. My point here is that an FIR is a very serious matter for any common man. So, when the police are accusing someone, then they should first investigate the case like the factory inspector or should take the help of the factory inspector before raising any FIR.

Dear All,

It is the occupier's duty to prepare HSE Policy & Plan and also review the performance of Health, Safety & Environment.

It is the occupier's duty to select and provide competent HSE Personnel and decide all roles and responsibilities of each individual in the organization towards HSE goals and objectives.

What if a Safety Officer has just joined the organization and an accident happens? He may not be able to identify that hazard while the occupier has been running the industry for many years. So, it is clear that socially, morally, legally, and financially it is the occupier's responsibility to avoid accidents and take the required control measures.

Gujarat Safety Officer's duties and responsibilities clearly state all the requirements.

Regards,
Hemal Sheth