Chapter 2
SAFETY MANGEMENT IN'INDIA
INTRODUCTION
2.1
Study of history reveals that dating back from the age of ancient
civilisations in Egypt and Rome it has been a long journey for safety
management system. Time and again there has been delayed recognition of
the importance of safety and health at the place of work. In recent times
remarkable
developments in
safety management have taken
place.
Historically, such turnaround in injury statistics i~ the outcome of interplay of
many factors over a long period of time. It has enabled industries to
successfully reduce industrial injuries. Obviously, such turnaround in injury
statistics has not taken place overnight. In the following section, a short review
of the evolution of safety in the factories in India will be made
to
have an
historical perspective of interplay of various factors in the safety management.
2.2
HISTORY OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT IN INDIA
The history of safety management in India is very much linked with the
history of industrialisation in the country. Prior to 1870, textile mills were
established in Bombay due to the easy availability of good quality of cotton
from the neighbouring areas, favourable Climatic conditions and convenient
transportation facility for merchandise in the port city. Similarly, iron works
were established in and around the port city of Calcutta as iron are and coal
were amply available in the eastern region of India. To meet the demands of
the
industry,
mining
activity
in
the
country
increased
enormously.
Simultaneously, there was ~ need 'for faster mode of transportation in the vast
country like India. Consequently, the railway lines were laid to connect various
parts of India. For the maintenance of such huge railway transportation
system,
railway
repairs and maintenance workshops were
gradually
established in various parts of the country. Similarly, alor.g the widely spreadout coastline in the peninsular India, major and minor ports were established
to
transport the growing merchandise and the passenger traffic. Consequent
to such development, the need to ensure safety for men and materials in
certain sectors of economic activity in India arose. Gradually, for the
management of safety, various legislations related to safety and health were
2S
formulated and enacted in four major non-agricultural sectors of economic
activity namely Factories, Mines, Railways and Docks. In the following section,
the history of safety legislation in Indian industries is described based on
information drawn from a Marathi publication titled "Karkhane Adhiniyam
Shatabdi (1881-1981) Smarak Grantha" (Government of Maharashtra, 1982).
2.2.1
Safety legislation in Factories
In the early stage of industrialisation, un~ygienic and unsafe working
conditions of textile mills were a cause of great concern to a few
philanthropists in Bombay. Two social activists, Shir N.M. Lokhande and Shri
Shorabjee Shaporji Bangalee struggled relentlessly to improve the deplorable
working conditions of mill workers in Bombay. Shri N.M. Lokhande was an
editor of a local daily in Bombay and also held the post of Chairperson of Mill
Workers' ASSOCiation.
Shri Shorabjee Shaporji Bangalee was a Parsee
philanthropist and worked as an agent for a textile machinery manufacturer.
Both of them were making consistent efforts to draw the attention oJ the British
Government to alleviate the problems faced by the textile workers. In a weekly
magazine titled Rosht Gottar (Supporter of Truth) Shri Bangalee used to
contribute articles depicting the deplorable working conaitions of the textile mill
workers in Mumbai (Modi & Krishnan, 1982).
Surprisingly, the demand for improving the working conditions of the
workers in the Indian textile mills was strongly made from an entirely unseemly
.~
quarter. Lancashire Textile Association made a strong appeal urging the
Indian Government to take' appropriate safety and health measures for the
textile mill workers. In fact, the textile mills in Bombay enjoyed a unique
competitive advantage over their competitors in UK due to locally available
raw materials and cheap labour. Fearing the loss of business, the Lancashire
Textile Association prevailed upon the Secretary of State, Government of India
to introduce legislation similar to the Factories Act of U.K. in India. Some of the
Englishmen namely Major Moore aOld Mr. Ballard were sympathetiC to the
cause of the legislative intervention for protection of workers in Indian
factories. On the 23,d March, 1875 a Royal Commission was appOinted by the
16
Bombay Government at the instance of the Secretary of State to look into the
details of working conditions of textile mills and to recommend measures to
frame rules related to wages and working conditions of the workers. The
committee comprised of renowned textile mill owners, Sir Mangaldas
Nathibhai, Sir Dinshaw Petit, Morarji Gokuldas and Huge Maxwell. This
commission interviewed owners, workers and medical practitioners to
assimilate evidences. Wag;;s and remuneration of the workers were not
included in the agenda for the commission. All" the Commission members,
except the district magistrate of Mumbai Mr. F.F. Arabbhanot, were against
framing of rules. The Committee members argued that framing of rules will
discourage entrepreneurs to start new factories. However, the commission
recommended prohibition of employment of children under 8 years and
working hours beyond 12 hours a day for adults. These recommendations
were viewed with suspicion by the Indian public and resisted by the textile mill
owner (Modi & Krishnan, 1982).
During that time of strong resistance from the mill owners and the
prevailing public sentiment against the recommendations of the commission,
Shri S.S. Bangalee fought tenaciously for the cause of textile labourers. He
studied the Commission report and started preparing a draft Factories Act in
order to protect the safety and health of the mill workers. His efforts were
mainly responsible for getting a bill refereed to the Indian legislature on the
7th
November 1879 (Tata, 1982). An organised body of workers also put in a
,
strong
plea
before
.
the
legislatil re
'
for
redressing
their
grievances.
.
Subsequently, the first Indian Factories Act (Act No. XV of 1881) was enacted
in India on the 1st July 1881. All the manufacturing establishment having
mechanical powers and employing 100 or more workers were brought under
the scope of the Act. The Act gave limited measure of protection to children by
prohibiting employment of children below seven years of age. The Act'
prohibited the practise of employing child labour in two separate factories on
the same day. It restricted the working hours in factories to nine hours per day.
The Act required factory owners to grant four holidays in a month and also rest
intervals during the work. A provision was made in the Act to provide machineguards for dangerous parts of machinery to protect employees from injuries.
The practise of Accident Reporting was made statutory for the employers
(Srivastava, 1963). However, the Act did not make any special provision for
the women workers. The implementation of the Act was entrusted upon the
district collectors without making provision for employment of
staff for the
inspection of factories (Tata, 1982). Due to almost complete lack of adequate
inspection, the 1881 Act was far from adequate in checking the abuses and
injustice done to the factory workers in India. Nevertheless, promulgation of
the Factories Act recognised the fact that Government would not hesitate to
interfere in the industrial sector to protect the weak and the oppressed.
The inadequacy of the 1881 Act led to continuous agitation by workers
under the leadership of Bangalee for its amendment (Modi & Krishnan, 1982).
In 1882, at the behest of the Bombay Government Mr. Meadking, an English
Inspector. investigated the conditions of labourers in industries and submitted
his recommendations for amending the Act of 1881. Later on, in the year
1884, a commission was constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. U.W.B.
Mulock, District Magistrate of Mumbai, to review those recommendations for
implementation in the Bombay Division. The commission constituted of two
members from the Bombay Chamber of Commerce and two members from
the Bombay Mill Owners' Association. Apart
, from them Shri Shorabjee
Shaporji Bangalee and Dr. Blane, a coroner as well as three more members
were inducted in the commission.
Interestingly, several sittings of the
Commission prepared the stage for the labour movement India. Because, prior
to those
Commission sittings, various representatives of the workers met
several times to jointly place their viewpoints before the Commission. Both,
Mr. Sangalee and Mr. N.M. Lokhande, played vital role in presenting the case
of
workers
to
the
Commission.
Unfortunately,
the
Commission's
recommendations for providing various safeguards to labours came to a
nought as the Government of India declined to amend the existing Act. In
1886-87 Mr. Mead Jones's report depicting the factory conditions in Bombay
28
was published in England. Following the publication of the Jane's report,
agitation for protecting the interest of the textile mill workers gained
momentum. In 1890, once again the Government of India appointed a
Factories Commission to review the provisions made in the Act and its
implementation. Finally, the amended Act was passed and came into force on
January 1, 1892. The Act was definitely an improvement over the previous
Act. The added provisions of the amended Act were: a) inclusion of all the
factories employing 50 or more workers under the purview of the Act; b)
raising the minimum age of Children to work in the factory to nine years; c)
limiting the hours of work of women workers to 11 hours a day within 8 A.M to
8 P.M. d) stipulating seven hours of working a day for children between nine
and fourteen years of age; e) making provisions for a weekly holiday and f)
allowing women workers one and half hours of interval if they were required to
work for the pennissib/e maximum hours (Modi & Krishnan,1982). The
Provincial Governments were empowered to make rules regarding measures
of sanitation and comfort (Srivastava, 1960).
In the last decade of the 19th century, the advent of electricity created a
new situation in the factories. Factories started working round the clock arid
conditions of the labours deteriorated. Devastating effects of plague at about
the same time had its repercussions on the availability of labour to meet the
increasing demand of production. In 1905 a boom in the cotton industry led to
long hours of work. The partition of Bengal also took place at about this time.
As a protest against the partition, British goods, especially textiles were
boycotted in Bengal by the local population. It gave rise to unusual production
activity in Indian textile factories. Consequently, with the sharp fall in the
demand for the cotton textiles from India the Lancashire cotton lobby
clamoured for stricter labour legislation in India.
Safety and health situation in the factories were, in fact, in a very bad
shape in India. Evasions of the provisions made in the 1881 Act were
widespread. Factories which did not work for more than 4 months in a year
were not brought under the Act. Ginning factories which were not brought
29
within the purview of the 1881 Act were the worst offenders. Various safety
provisions made under this Act were also proved to be inadequate. A number
of tragic fires in the cotton presses took place between 1901 and 1906
resulting in more than 50 deaths. The government of India took a serious view
of the situation and in 1902 introduced a new Bill for further amending the
earlier Acts and this was circulated for public opinion (Srivastava, 1960).
In 1906, the Secretary of
::;~ate
appointed a Textile Factories Labour
Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Freer Smith, to investigate the
working conditions in the textile mills. Again in 1907, under the Chairmanship
of Hon. Morrison, another Committee was constituted. Following these, a Bill
containing the recommendations of these Committees was introduced and
Factories Act of 1911 was enacted. The 1911 Act was similar to the UK Act
1833. Its salient feature was the formation of the system of Factory
Inspectorate system to enforce the provisions under the Act. Other provisions
under the Act included (a) limiting the hours of work of male .adults and
children to 12 and 6 hours, respectively with a rest interval of half an hour and
(b) children were required to produce certificates regarding their age and
physical fitness.
During post First World Was period (1914-1918) with the inception of
ILO in 1919, conventions on working hours, minimum age, night work of
women and young persons etc., were adopted. In India the growth of labour
movements, stirring of public interest on labour issues and a number of
industrial strikes led to the .ratification of the most of the (LO conventions. in
1921. A 60-hour week was conceded and night work for women and children
under 14 was prohibited. In 1922, the Factories Act was amended to include
within its scope the industrial undertakings using mechanical power and
employing 20 or more persons. The minin'lUm age of children working in the
factories was raised to 12 years. Similarly, the maximum age of child workers
was also raised to 15 years. The working hours for adults were restricted to a
maximum of 11 hours per day and 60 hours per week.
For administrative
30
purposes minor amendments of the Act were made in 1923 as well as in 1926
(Srivastava, 1960).
In 1929, following serious labour unrest in the country, the Government
of India announced appointment of a royal commission by His Majesty the
Emperor of England. The purpose of this commission was to review the
existing law in detail and make suitable recommendations after conducting an
enqUiry into the living condit::ns of Indian working population in industrial
undertakings and plantations. This resulted in the Bill of 1934 being passed
into Act. Under the provisions of this Act a number of amendments were
made. The most important among these provisions were the reduction of
hours of work to 48 hours per week and the grant of ten days' holiday with pay
for 12 months' approved service.
World War II broke out during 1939-45. During wartime, the
Government relaxed application of the Factories Act to gear up production to
meet the needs of the war. In the process, safety took a back seat. Hectic
production schedules and desperate attempts to meet the production
deadlines at any cost led to many industrial accidents specially incidents of fire
with loss of life and property. In 1945, Govemment of India appointed a Chief
Advisor of Factories for advising the Government on matters related to
occupational safety and health including fire fighting measures in industrial
establishments (Modi & Krishnan, 1982).
With the attainment of India's independence in 1947, a comprehensive
central enactment applicable to the entire country for the protection of workers
was enacted in the year 1948. This Act is known as The Factories Act 1948.
The work of consolidating and amending the Factories Act was entrusted to
the Chief Advisor of Factories (CAF) presently called as Directorate General of
Factory Advisory Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) under the Ministry
of Labour, Government of India. Meanwhile, a committee was set up under the
Chairmanship of Sir Wilfred Garrett to review the Factories Act 1948. Sir
Wilfred Garrett was the first Chief Advisor or Factories and also ex-His
Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories of UK. The committee recommended
31
that there should be an arrangement at the central level to train the factory
inspectors and to create research facility to set up standards, relating to safety
and health at the place of work. These recommendations were instrumental in
establishing Central Labour Institute located in Mumbai and Regional Labour
Institutes located in Chennai, Calcuttta, and Kanpur (DGFASLI, 2003).
The main objectives of the Factories Act 1948 are to ensure adequate
safety measures and to promote health and welfare of the workers employed
in factories. It is the main legislation goveming safety, health and welfare of
persons employed in factories. It is a central enactment but is enforced by the
state governments. The power of making rules under the act is also invested
in the Sate governments. The Factories Act empowers the Central
government to issue directions to the State governments with regard to the
execution of the provisions of the Act. The Act extends to the whole of India
and applies to all establishments carrying out manufacturing process and
employing 10 or more workers where power is used and to establishments
carrying out manufacturing process and employing 20 or more workers where
power is not used. State government is, however empowered to apply the
provisions of the Act to any premises, irrespective of the employment therein
where manufacturing process is carried on with or without the aid of power.
However, in cases where the work is done by the worker solely with the help
of the members of his family the provisions of the Act would not be applicable
(Govt. of India, 20(1).
Constitutionally, labour. is a concurrent subject. For the purpose of
enforcement of various provisions of the Act, the state governments appoint
persons with the prescribed qualifications as Inspectors/Certifying Surgeons in
respect of the local limits assigned to each of them. In addition, every District
Magistrate is the 'Inspector' for his district. The inspector possesses requisite
powers such as those relating to entry into the factory, inspection of premises,
plant and machinery, making on the spot enquiries, requiring production of
documents, etc., for effective enforcement of the Act. The duties of the
Certifying Surgeons are to examine young persons and to issue the certificate
of fitness, to conduct periodical examination of persons engaged in dangerous
occupations in factories and to exercise general medical supervision.
Model Rules were framed under the relevant provisions of the Act in
order to maintain uniformity in the administration of the Act in various states.
These rules were framed by the Directorate General of Factory Advice Service
and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI), which is an attached office of Ministry of
Labour, Government of India. In order to achieve uniformity in the standards of
enforcement DGFASLI, on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, enlists the cooperation and involvement of the state governments by convening annual
conference of the Chief Inspectors of Factories of aU the states.
The
Conference acts as a forum to discuss all matters related to the administration
of the Act as well as amendments to the provisions, if any, under the Act and
the Rules enacted by the state governments (Govt. of India, 1993).
•
Significant amendments in the Factories Act 1948 were carried out
during 1954 and 1976. The amendments carried out during 1954 were mainly
to give effects to the ILO Conventions with a view to ratify them. The
amendments in 1976 extended the coverage of the Act to contract workers
and provided for the compulsory appointment of Safety Officers in certain
factories thus giving statutory cover to the safety profession. Seeking prior
permission to carry out any dangerous operations and processes was also
made mandatory for the factory owners or the 'Occupier'. The amended Act
introduced the concept of minimum penalty for the violation of safety provision
in the industrial establishments.
In 1984 the infamous Bhopal disaster took place. Consequent to this
disaster, the comprehensive changes were made in the Factories Act. In its
1987 amendment, for the first time the Act had made provisions related to the
physical location of the industry in the context of its neighbourhood. The
amendments had three principal objectjves namely,
i.)
To locate the factory in such a manner it does not cause adverse
effect to its neighbourhood.
ii.}
To provide for the measures of protection against the danger of
handling hazardous substances.
iii.)
To enable the participation of workers in the safety management.
Some of the concepts enshrined in the comprehensive ILO convention
number 155 covering occupational safety, health and work environment were
also incorporated in this amendment. These included compulsory disclosure of
information to the worker and the wOrkGi'3 right to get trained. The concept of
self-regulation was also introduced during 1987" amendment vide section 7(A)
sub-section (1). The importance of training of workers on the matters related to
safety and health was emphasised as one of the general duties of the
occupier and the right was given to the worker to demand for training on safety
and health. The worker has a right to warn the employer about the imminent
danger of health and safety. Besides, amendment to various Sections of the
Principal Act, the amended Act omitted Section 100 of the principal Act
inserted 7A, 78, 87A, 96A, 104A, 106A, 111A and 118A; substituted Sections
36 and 38 by new sections; inserted a new Chapter IV-A and inserted two new
Schedules. For over a period of 50 years several amendments in the Factories
. Act have strengthened the safety and health provisions in the industrial sector.
After the Bhopal tragedy, the amendments made in the Factories Act have
brought the workplace safety and health requirements to a sharp national
focus. Apart from the Factories Act, at least 17 Acts (e.g., The Explosives Act.
1884, amended in 1983; The Manufacturing Storage and Import of Hazardous
Chemicals Rules, 1989 etc.) have been enacted for the protection of
occupational safety, health and environment (Govt. of India, 2001).
2.3
EVOLUTION OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT:
INTERPLAY MULTIPLE FORCES
OVERVIEW
OF
Researcher believes that the study of history of safety management is
more of a history of safety legislation and less of management. In fact, study of
history reveals that study of management made a beginning with Taylorism to
streamline and boost the manufacturing process. While management process
evolved to be an integral part of the manufacturing process, safety
34
management never emerged to be an essential a part of it except in highly
hazardous industries. Historically, the process of safety management in the
production process was imposed upon by the society through legislative
interventions. Thus, the study of the history of safety management turns out to
be a history of safety legislation. Even in this century, the trend continues and
there is the need for invoking the legislative intervention for injury prevention in
the society since safety manageiiient is yet to be an integral part of the
manufacturing process. The need for such intervention is emphasised when
an eminent transport safety specialist proposes the need for a "forgiving
system" in which 'kinds of designs, rules and regulations would reduce the
probability of people hurting each other or themselves even when they make
mistake' (Mohan., 2000:3). He appeals, ' ... we have a societal and moral
responsibility to design our products, environment and laws so that people find
it easy and convenient to behave in a safe manner without sacrificing their
needs to earn a living and fulfil their other societal obligations' (Mohan,
2000:2).
A review of the history of safety legislation reveals the role of certain
forces in harnessing the cause of safety.
A. Role of Management or Owners:
For years, the value of safety and
health at the workplace was overlooked in the absence of any economic.
necessity to protect the life and health of workmen. However, cause of safety
has drawn support from the management or the owners whenever they realise
that the investm!3nt towards safety makes a good bUSiness sense .
. Management are found to be proactive about safety whenever they realise
that a) higher cost of premature replacement of equipment damaged or
destroyed by accidents, b) prohibitive direct or indirect cost of compensation
due to fatal or even nonfatal accidents ami c) severe penalty awarded for noncompliance is less economical than the investment on safety and health. With
the present compulsion to obtain ISO certification which requires integration of
occupational safety and health with quality and productivity, management finds
that occupational safety and health do make a good business sense.
35
History also suggests that there are occasions when to bring
competitive parity among manufacturers, safety measures were demanded by
a group of management to be imposed upon those manufacturers who did not
care for those. Ultimately, whatever happened was indeed to the advantage to
the cause of safety of the people but in reality it was sheer business interest
rather than human interest that prevailed upon in implementing safety in the
industry.
B. Role of Legislation: In most of the cases, significant advances in safety
have taken place through legislative intervention. Safety legislation, to a vast
eldent, is engaged in an examination of the actual state of affairs within 'manmachine-environment system' to detennine whether and to what eldent
modern technology can be accepted by law. The legal system can never
abandon the life and the health of the citizens to the dangers inherent in
modem technology. It must determine as a reflection of the basic political
decision as well, whether and to what eldent modern technology can be
accepted by law. Thus the legal system constitutes the measures by which the
political intent of the voter or citizens can shape the components of manmachine-environment systems (Ridley, 1999).
Occupational health and safety laws and standards are based on a
technical approach to the management of occupational health and safety risk.
In the technical literature, risk management is defined as a three staged
process (Ridley, 1990; Viner, 1996). First, hazards in the work environment
are identified; second, the risks posed by theSe hazards are assessed; and
finally, appropriate controls for risks are selected according to a risk control
hierarchy (Mathews, 1993). According to the principle of this hierarchy, the
control measures that target hazards at their source and act on the work
environment are more effective than controls that aim to change the behaviour
of exposed workers. Thus, technological control measures, such as the
SUbstitution of hazardous substances or processes and engineering controls,
are preferable to individual controls such as the introduction of safe work
practices or the use of personal protective equipment.
36
C. Role of Political influences: Political influences operate at three levels
(Ridley, 1999). At the first level, grass-root level workers and electors put
pressures on the representatives of the parliament to make laws in order to
provide protection against perceived occupational hazards. Politicians in their
turn, to appease the voters or to create a vote bank take up the cause of the
voters. Ultimately a private member's Bill is proposed, debated and passed
through the legislature. At the second level, an event or incident can occur
whose result is so traumatic that the nation and the parliament is shaken up
and get into action. Safety, health and environment related legislation passed
•
in India by the parliament after the Bhopal tragedy is an example of political
influence at this level. At the third level, the ruling party, with an eye on political
expediency, may decide to introduce legislation that will increase its standing
as a political party among marginal groups of voters (Ridley, 1999).
D. Role of Union Activism: The legislative intervention is preceded by the
union activism. In many countries, collective bargaining has played a vital role
in workplace safety improvements for many years. Union influence has been
exerted not only in direct negotiations but also through financing or supporting
safety and health research, lobbying for safety and health legislation and
supporting liability suits filed by union members.
E. The Role of Technology: Technology has played a vital role in creating a
need for extensive and dynamic safety program (Findlay & Kuhlman, 1980).
Scientists and engineers have been continuously developing new equipment
and process both for manufac~uring as welJ as for protecting the workers from
hazardous work environment. Personal protective equipment are made more
comfortable and user friendly to maintain the productive efficiency of the
worker. In many places robotic technology is used to ensure the safety and
health of workers. Apart from the equipment and gadgets, technology for
manufacturing goods or providing services, various innovative management
technologies have been developed, tested and implemented to promote and
sustain safety and health status of the working population in the world of work.
37
F. The Role of Research: The research in the area of medical sciences,
ergonomics, and industrial hygiene helped defining limits on exposures in
those cases where problems could be avoided by limiting the amount or
duration of exposure. More importantly, research continues to identify
substances and by-products, which are irreversible in effect and in some
cases, carcinogenic.
G. The Role of Training: For doing the job ~ificiently and safely, it is essential
that employees are given systematic training .. Selecting qualified and welltrained personnel does not minimise the need for such training. Training
imparted in safety, need not necessarily be termed as safety training and
thereby create inhibition among employees towards such training due to the
taboo attached to the concept of safety. Instead of professing ·safety" as 'a
safe way of doing' and thereby inducing a defensive stance, ·safety" could be
conceived as the 'right way of doing' (Florio & Staffore, 1962). As such, the
purpose of the training is to educate employees about the correct way of doing
the job. When such training is imparted, care is taken to produce goods or
services ensuring quality, safety, customer delight and minimising damage or
loss of any kind.
Irrespective of the fact whether such integrated approach to training is
adopted or not. most of the manufacturing firms in the organised sector impart
safety related training to its employee. In India it is a statutory requirement to
expose workers in hazardous industries to safety training and educate them
on hazardous substances arId processes to which they are exposed in their
workplace. Training imparted to the employees is to be followed-up by
effective supervision to ensure that the employees are indeed following safe
procedures of work and thereby internalised the training inputs. The ultimate
objective of rendering safety training to the employees is to help them attain a
desired level of competence to take responsibility for meeting statutory
obligations in carrying out the work. This trend may, in course of time, give a
new focus to the issue who will bea r the onus of responsibility for remaining
safe at the place of work (Ridley. 1999). If imparting training to the employees
38
is considered as the end in itself instead of the means to prevent injury at the
place of work, the purpose of training will hardly be fulfilled.
H. Onus of Safety: Historically. in the initial stage of legislation. the onus of
responsibility for remaining safe at work was thrust on those who operated the
machinery. Accordingly. in the event of an accident it was considered that the
operator working on the machine had caused accident and therefore was not
eligible to get any compensation. In the niiJdle ()f the twentieth century the
onus shifted from the worker to the occupier as the occupier is in the position
of control of what is being done and how it is being done.
In the present times, there is a growing realisation of the positive role
that employees have to play in health and safety. The catalyst for this
realisation seems to be the knowledge that is being imparted systematically to
al/ the employees in the plant through weI/-Planned safety. health and
environment related trainin9 pr09rammes.
Ther~
are many examples that
similar attempt is made to make the community outside the plant to .be
knowledgeable about safety, health and environment aspects of the product
and the plant. Some of these attempts have been made legal/y obligatory for
manufacturers and suppliers to pass the information to their customers about
hazards and safe operating. techniques for the products they supply. This
obligation is met by preparing and issuing manuals, data sheets, statutory
warnings etc. According to John Ridley' It remains to be seen how long it will
be before and to what extent the judiciary will acknowledge and recognise that
those with knowledge have ~n obligation to employ it in meeting statutory
obligation"(Ridley. 1999:74).
39