SUO MOTU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation originates from a letter dated 27.06.2011 addressed by Mr. Jagdish Patel, Head of Peoples Training and Research Centre (PTRC), a Non-Governmental Organisation working in the field of occupational health and safety to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court with regard to the plight of the workers engaged in a manufacturing unit run by Corel Pharma Chem Ltd. Ltd. in Kadi, Mehsana, who were exposed to fine dust of some polymers and who fell a prey to lung diseases, one of which was pnuemothorax. This letter specifically talks about two workers, viz., Alkaben Thakor, 22, who died of respiratory disease of 14.08.2010 after prolonged illness and hospitalization and Nainaben Gajjar, 27, who became completely bedridden after she was found to be suffering from severe fibrosis alongwith pnuemothorax. The letter also stated that several other workers were found to be suffering from incurable lung fibrosis. It was alleged by the author that Corel Pharma Chem Ltd. Ltd. was also running the unit in total violation of various labour laws like the Minimum Wages Act and the Employees State Insurance Act.

(2.) It is now well-settled that right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related to Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person. The State, be it Union or State Government or an industry, public or private, is enjoined to take all such action which will promote health, strength and vigour of the workman during the period of employment and leisure and health even after retirement as basic essentials to live the life with health and happiness.

(3.) This Court on 21st July 2011 issued a notice on respondents and also ordered that the National Institute of Occupational Health, Meghaninagar, through its Director be impleaded as a party respondent No.4. The learned advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta was engaged as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and address the Court on the issue in question. This Court also observed in its order dated 21st July 2011 that pendency of the case shall not stand in the way of the respondent-State Authorities to inquire into the matter and take suitable action in accordance with law.