This case underscores the ongoing struggle to address systemic failures in eliminating manual scavenging in India, despite explicit legislative prohibitions under the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. Sridhar, a 22-year-old worker employed without protective gear, tragically lost his life while performing hazardous sewer-cleaning duties for a contractor hired by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (CMWSSB). His death is emblematic of the broader issue of neglect in enforcing labour welfare laws and ensuring safe working conditions for marginalized workers engaged in demeaning tasks.
Following Sridhar’s death, his father, Kannaiyan, filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, seeking justice and financial relief. However, the case was fraught with procedural hurdles, including repeated dismissals for default due to Kannaiyan’s inability to attend hearings—a situation exacerbated by his impoverished and fragile circumstances. The protracted litigation highlighted the judiciary’s struggle to balance procedural formalities with substantive justice in cases involving vulnerable communities.
After Kannaiyan’s death, his legal representatives persisted with the claim, filing the present writ petition to challenge the rigid application of procedural norms by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The case not only called for compensation for Sridhar’s family but also raised critical questions about the role of state authorities and contractors in perpetuating exploitative labour practices. By situating this case within the broader context of labour rights and human dignity, the Court’s timely and decisive intervention acted as a crucial measure to address systemic failings and restore accountability within institutional frameworks.
Issues involved
- Whether the repeated dismissals for default by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour were justified under labour welfare legislation?
- Whether the family of the deceased is entitled to compensation despite procedural lapses?
Observations made by the court
- The Court unequivocally held that the continued practice of manual scavenging violates fundamental human rights and directly contravenes existing statutory provisions, such as the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993.
“This case does not need any elaborate reasoning. Suffice it to state that one of our fellow human beings died of manual scavenging. This violates all tenants of human rights. Even at the relevant time, the action of the manual scavenging of the sewer stood prohibited by The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act”
(Paragraph 8 of the judgment)
2. The court observed that the death of Sridhar exemplified systemic neglect by both the state authorities and contractors, who failed to ensure basic safety measures. The Court highlighted the absolute liability of the respondents to compensate the victim’s family without procedural hurdles.
“there can be no doubt whatsoever that the said Sridhar died while he was employed as a manual scavenger when he was sent inside the underground sewer without any protective gear”
(Paragraph 2 of the judgment)
3. The Court criticised the respondents for their lack of proactive measures and emphasized that labour welfare laws demand a liberal interpretation to prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
“Even when a petition is filed at least at that stage, immediately the authorities should have agreed to pay the compensation. The Labour Commissioner before whom the petition was pending ought to be alive to the facts situation. Even if the petitioner does not appear, proactive steps should have been taken to summon the petitioner and compensation ought to have been paid. It was extremely unfair on the part of all the respondents” (Paragraph 9 of the judgment)
4. Citing Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (2014 11 SCC 224), the Court reiterated that compensation of ₹10,00,000 is mandatory in cases of sewer deaths. It further relied on Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2023 INSC 950) to acknowledge the revised compensation of ₹30,00,000 for incidents occurring post-1993.
“The matter is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Safai Karamchari Andolon and Others -Vs- Union of India (2014 11 SCC 224)2 has mandated grant of a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs to the family of the person who dies in sewer cleaning”
(Paragraph 8 of the judgment)
Guidelines issued
- The impugned order dismissing the condonation of delay application was quashed.
- Compensation of ₹10,00,000 was awarded as follows:
- ₹3,30,000 to Jaya.
- ₹3,40,000 to Venda.
- ₹3,30,000 to minor dependents Mohan and Vijaykumar, via their guardian Venda.
- The respondents were directed to disburse the compensation within six weeks and issue an apology letter acknowledging societal failures.
- The Court observed that negligence by the authorities amounted to a systemic failure to prevent manual scavenging deaths.
Significance of the judgment
This judgment is a critical intervention in the ongoing battle against manual scavenging, a practice deeply entrenched in caste-based discrimination and systemic neglect. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar poignantly remarked, “In India, a man is not a scavenger because of his work. He is a scavenger because of his birth irrespective of the question whether he does scavenging or not.” The decision of the Court not only addresses the immediate injustice faced by the family of Sridhar but also emphasizes the urgent need to dismantle structural inequalities that perpetuate this practice. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, in her statement on January 31, 2013, recognized manual scavenging as a “self-perpetuating cycle of stigma and untouchability,” calling it a “deeply unhealthy, unsavoury, and undignified job forced upon people because of their caste.” This judgment reinforces that such dehumanizing labour has no place in a modern democracy and highlights the failure to implement existing laws like the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
Drawing on the Human Rights Watch report and the UN’s acknowledgment of India’s efforts, the judgment reflects the judiciary’s proactive role in holding state and local authorities accountable. The Court’s mandate for compensation, coupled with an apology, signals a broader responsibility to restore dignity and justice for marginalized communities. By citing landmark cases such as Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (2014) and Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2023), the judgment aligns itself with the global movement to eradicate manual scavenging and rehabilitate those subjected to it. This judgment stands as a clarion call for society and the state to ensure strict enforcement of laws, provide sustainable alternatives, and break the chains of caste oppression that continue to define and degrade the lives of millions in India.
The Judgment in this case, W.P.No.2339 of 2010, delivered D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J of Madras High Court on December 17, 2024 may be read here
(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)
Related:
Manual scavenging: Hate crime with caste discrimination at its root, Indian Railways an offender
How courts have expanded jurisprudence for Manual Scavengers
The Manual Scavengers Act: Jurisprudence so far
Manual scavenger deaths: How effective is the law in preventing them?