Manual Scavenging: Gujarat High Court Condemns 'Absolute Silence' By Municipality's Incharge On Action Taken On Death Of 2 Sanitation Workers

The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday (March 5) expressed its displeasure with the Chief Officer of Patdi Nagar Palika (Municipality) for the "absolute silence" on any action taken by the body after it became aware of the death of two sanitation workers– employed by a contractor, during manual scavenging.

While perusing the officer's affidavit, the court said that the "ignorance" shown by the officer "cannot be appreciated". It also said that apart from terminating the contract of the contractor engaged by the municipality, no other penal action has been taken by nagar palika against the contractor who had employed the two deceased workers, one allegedly being a minor. It thus directed the Chief Officer to make an inquiry.

The court was hearing an application moved in a 2016 PIL on the issue of manual scavenging moved. The application pointed to an incident pertaining to the death of two sanitary workers, who the petitioner organisation alleged, were engaged in manual scavenging–cleaning a septic tank situated near a school in Patdi, Surendranagar district, on the oral orders of the officers of the municipality. 

During the hearing, attention of the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi was drawn by the senior counsel appearing for Patdi Nagar Palika towards the agreement entered into between the municipality and the contractor engaged for management/maintenance of drainage and its cleaning. 

Perusing the contract the court noted that there was a "categorical clause 13" which stated that the "contractor would not engage any worker for manual scavenging of the manholes. In any case the directions of the apex court would be complied with in its true letter and spirit".

The court thereafter in its order dictated, "As against the categorical condition of the contract, the contractor had indulged in manual scavenging which has resulted into the loss of lives of two workers engaged by the contractor. It is pointed by counsel for petitioner, one of the worker's engaged who had died, was a minor".

The court noted that the Chief Officer/Incharge of the municipality had in his affidavit stated that on account of wrongful action of contractor, notices have been issued calling upon the contractor to show cause why the contract be not terminated and further compensation to family of deceased be not realised from him.

It then said, "However the fact remains that the Nagar Palika being principal employer was required to supervise the working of the contractor. The fact that a minor person had been  engaged by contractor is a serious matter and was required be looked into by the principal employer...There is nothing on record in the affidavit of the incharge chief officer Nagar Palika as to how the supervision of the work by the contractor was being conducted on the part of the principal employer namely the nagar palika". 

The court thereafter directed the Chief Officer/Incharge of Patdi Nagar Palika to look into the entire required and further make an inquiry as to "how and in what manner" the engagement of workers was done by contractor and whether payment of due wages was being made by not. 

"The relevant certificate of proof of age of each of the workers was required to be placed before the principal employer," the court said. It further said that the sanitary inspector's role is also aligned as he was a person in a supervisory capacity.

"The role of sanitary supervisor in the whole episode is to be looked into. There is absolute silence on any action initiated of the nagar palika on coming to the notice of the incident of the death of the two contract workers during manual scavenging. The ignorance shown by the incharge chief officer nagarpalika cannot be appreciated. Furthermore apart from initiation of action of termination of contract, no other penal action has been taken by nagar palika being the principal employer, against the contractor," the court said. 

It thereafter said that all of these issues pointed out by the court are required to be answered by the Chief Officer/Incharge of Patdi Nagar Palika. The court thereafter granted the counsel appearing for the nagar palika two weeks, calling upon the officer to file a proper affidavit and conduct the inquiry as per the directions of the court. 

Aggressive Awareness Campaign needed to address repeated deaths during manual scavenging

At this stage the counsel appearing for the petitioner said that he had discussed with the government pleader appearing for the State to address larger issue on repeated deaths of workers during manual scavenging. He said that there needs to be an "aggressive awareness campaign".

Agreeing with the same, the court orally said that municipal commissioners can issue directions and also caution that in case of any such incident then disciplinary action will be taken. The court further said that apart from the campaign there has to be deterrent as well. 

At this stage the government pleader submitted, "If an agency asks safai kamdar to get into a manhole then this person should have access to make an immediate complaint". 

The court thereafter orally said, "Grievance redressal may also be created at the stage of nagarpalika. Because it seems that they are trying to avoid or hush hush the issue...terms and conditions of contract are very casual...Here nagarpalika showed complete ignorance. There must be news paper reports, social media...people can't plead ignorance". 

It thereafter in its order dictated that for the larger issue of repeated deaths of contract workers, "brain storming is to be done at the end of the commissioner of municipal administration who in our considered opinion is required to hold a meeting of heads of local governing bodies to find out permanent solution of issues coming to the court".

The court directed the government pleader to communicate the court's order to commissioner of municipal administration to workout permanent solution and asked the officer to file an affidavit.

It thereafter listed the matter after 3 weeks. 

Case title: MANAV GARIMA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

R/WPPIL/225/2016