Telangana HC Slams Routine Probe in Sigachi Blast Investigation

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday slammed the routine nature of the probe into the Sigachi Industries factory explosion which claimed the lives of 54 workers on June 30, and sought details of acts of culpable omission or criminal negligence by statutory authorities.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin pulled up the investigation officer (IO) — deputy superintendent of police of Patancheru — and asked why the inquiry team had failed to examine the role of statutory authorities whose neglect of mandatory inspections may have led to the accident.

Expressing serious dissatisfaction over the presentation of the case by the IO and state government, the court appointed Dominic Fernandes, High Court advocate, as amicus curiae to assist the court. The court adjourned the hearing to December 30 and said the IO must appear before the court on that day.

The court asked the IO and the officer of factories department, who were present in the court on Tuesday following earlier orders: “Are you facing any kind of pressure… if you have any pressure or difficulty… let us know. We will insulate your functioning and will give a superior officer to get it done”. When the IO replied that there was no pressure, the court directed him to do the investigation on the right lines.

The Chief Justice bench cautioned that a routine investigation of witnesses without examining the culpable omission by the authorities of ESI, PF, factories, fire, labour, revenue department and others would not be tolerated. “When we nail it down, it will be more difficult to you… we are giving you the lead. If you have examined the authorities… it is well and good, if you have not done so …then (conduct) the probe in the said lines,” the court said.

The bench noted that lives had been lost. “Ensure that the regulatory agencies come up… unless some heads fall, they (statutory authorities) won’t learn,” the court said. “If you expect the court to monitor the investigation…. we (will) ask more questions and elicit answers. But that is not our primary job,”

“There are statutory authorities who are supposed to inspect and to ensure compliances. If they have failed… they must not go scot-free. That would send a message to the rest,” the Chief Justice bench said.

The court was of the view that this was not an isolated incident.. “it may happen anywhere in the state… and (will) keep on happening” if the statutory authorities are allowed to go scot-free.

The court questioned what the authorities of PF, ESI, labour and factories were doing when more than 90 workers were in the factory , whereas workers records showed only around 50 workers. The court pointed out that the unorganised labour do not have voice . “In the present scenario of the labour jurisprudence we have… the managements have become very strong,” the court noted.

The court questioned the investigation authorities whether they had probed if the officers concerned had ever inspected the plant for violations with regard to unorganised labour. It noted that the report showed that there are more than permitted quantities of inflammable material in the plant. “…whether the department concerned ever inspected that… if action would have been taken earlier on such lapses, this kind of incident could not have happened.”

The bench also noted in similar incidents, the factory owner would be chargesheeted. The culpable omissions and criminal negligence must be considered and the responsible authorities must be brought to book.

When the additional advocate-general Tera Rajanikanth Reddy submitted that the state government had issued several guidelines to the authorities on safety and mandatory measures in the factories, the bench noted that there were dozens of guidelines and statutes but the problem lay at the stage of the enforcement. “This is a widely acknowledged shortcoming in our system,” the bench said.

The court expressed displeasure over the lack of preparedness of the IO and additional advocate-general and gave them two weeks to come prepared. The court directed that the investigation should continue against those whom the agency felt were either actively responsible or whose omission or negligence was culpable in nature.

The court inquired about the payment of compensation of Rs.1 crore for the family of each victim promised by the Sigachi management. Counsel for Sigachi sought two weeks to reply. Additional A-G Rajnikanth Reddy informed the court that Rs.23 crore was paid as compensation.

Vasudha Nagraj, counsel for the petitioner in the PIL, said that temporary, casual and contract workers had not been paid beyond Rs.25 lakh only permanent employees had been paid between Rs.45 lakh and Rs.55 lakh. She sought a direction to the government to furnish the FIR copies which were registered with regard to the eight workers who were listed missing.