Madras High Court
K.Samuthiravalli vs The Additional Chief Secretary & ... on 16 May, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
K.Samuthiravalli : Petitioner in WP(MD).23007/2015
S.Alamelu : Petitioner in WP(MD).23008/2015
M.Kaleeswari : Petitioner in WP(MD).23009/2015
P.Veluthai : Petitioner in WP(MD).23010/2015
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of
Revenue Administration,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Elizhagam,
Cheppakkam,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar – 626 002.
3.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District.
5.The Tamil Nadu Fireworks and Amorces
Manufacturers' Association (TANFAMA),
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
6.The Chief Controller of Explosives,
A Block CGO Complex,
Fifth Floor, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur – 440 006, Maharashtra.
7.The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives,
Sivakasi Sub Circle Office,
FRDC Complex, Near ESI Hospital,
Sivakasi West, Sivakasi – 626 124.
8.The Indian Fireworks Manurs Association (TIFMA),
Rep. by its Secretary,
T.Kannan. : Respondents in all WPs
[R.3 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 25.08.2023]
[R.4 to R.7 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 02.01.2024]
[R.8 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 24.01.2024]
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
COMMON PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
a) directing the respondents to grant the relief amount of
Rs.4,00,000/-, as recommended by the second respondent to the
Government of Tamil Nadu through his letter in Na.Ka.E4/40400/2014,
dated 30.12.2014 to the petitioners and their children, who have lost the
only breadwinner in the fireworks tragedy occurred on 02.12.2014 at
G.V.Traders, a fireworks unit at Ettakkapatti, Sivakasi Taluk,
Virudhunagar District, within a stipulated time limit.
b) directing the respondents to arrange for a job either in the noon
meal scheme or in the hostels run by the Adi Dravida Welfare Department,
taking into account of the petitioner's qualification.
3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sahayaphilomin Raj
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran,
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1 to R.3
Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by
Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanidhi,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
for R.4
Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
for Mr.E.Mareeskumar for R.5
Mr.K.R.Laxman for R.6, R.7
Mr.A.Sivaji for R.8
Mr.N.Dilipkumar [Amicus]
In all WPs
*****
4/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed by the wives of four deceased workers who lost their lives in a fire accident that took place on 02.12.2014 at a fireworks manufacturing unit located at Ettakkapatty Village, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District. All four workers belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and were the sole breadwinners of their families. Following the incident, the petitioners approached the District Administration for compensation and employment support.
2.After assessing the socio-economic condition of the petitioners’ families, the Tahsildar submitted a report recommending a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for each of the victims. The second respondent / the District Collector forwarded this recommendation to the Government through his letter dated 30.12.2014. However, the Government, in March 2015, sanctioned only Rs.1,00,000/- as ex gratia compensation. The balance of Rs.4,00,000/-, though recommended, was never released. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 mandamus directing the respondents to release the balance amount and to provide suitable employment to them or their eligible family members.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that fireworks manufacturing is a hazardous activity falling within the scope of Section 87 of the Factories Act, 1948, and is regulated under the Explosives Act, 1884, and the Explosives Rules, 2008. It was argued that there was a complete failure on the part of the licensing and regulatory authorities to enforce safety measures, and as such, the State is vicariously liable. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India [2023 INSC 950], wherein the Court enhanced compensation for sewer deaths to Rs.30,00,000/- recognising the hazardous nature of the work, and Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India [(2014) 11 SCC 224], where the State was directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/-.
4.Learned Counsel further referred to the order of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 44 of 2021, where a fire accident at a fireworks unit in Achankulam, Sivakasi, which resulted in 27 deaths, 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 led the Tribunal to award Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for each deceased worker. A committee headed by Justice K.Kannan found systemic regulatory failures. Additionally, this Court, in WP(MD)No.12456 of 2019, awarded Rs.5,00,000/- compensation to a boy injured in an explosion at an illegal fireworks unit.
Therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders for compensation.
5.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that at the relevant point of time, G.O.Ms.No.89, Revenue Department, dated 18.02.2015, was in force, prescribing compensation ranging from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Nevertheless, the Government, as a special case, paid Rs.1,00,000/- ex gratia from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund vide G.O.Ms.No.61, Home Department, dated 29.01.2015. That apart, the employer had also contributed Rs.20,000/-.
6.He further submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any additional compensation under law and that any further relief can only be granted pursuant to Government policy. The State also denied any 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 vicarious liability, stating that the accident occurred in a private unit. Additionally, it was submitted that three of the petitioners were appointed as Helpers in Anganwadi Centres and are earning a monthly income of approximately Rs.7,600/-. One petitioner is working as a construction labourer, while her mother-in-law is employed as a sanitary worker.
7.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
8.The manufacture, possession, and sale of fireworks are regulated under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008. These Rules categorise fireworks as Class 7 explosives and impose a tiered licensing mechanism depending upon the quantity of explosives permitted to be stored or processed at any one time. A District Magistrate or District Revenue Officer is empowered to issue licenses only where the total quantity of explosives, including raw materials, processed material, and finished goods, does not exceed 15 kilograms at any one time. Quantities ranging from 15 kg to 500 kg fall under the jurisdiction of the Controller of 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 Explosives and those above 500 kg under the Chief Controller of Explosives.
9.However, it has come to light that DROs have issued licenses beyond their jurisdiction by permitting multiple sheds or by exceeding the 15 kg limit. Such licenses are patently invalid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnan Lal Praveen Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(1981) 4 SCC 550] clarified that the limit applies to the total quantity in the premises “at any one time,” and as such, the licenses issued contrary to this are ultra vires.
10.Sivakasi is known as the “fireworks capital of India”, contributing over 90% of the country’s production. Its dry climate, minimal rainfall, and humidity make it ideal for fireworks, but the same conditions heighten the risk of explosions. Virudhunagar District is classified as an Aspirational District by NITI Aayog, reflecting persistent underdevelopment. The area suffers from critical groundwater scarcity, negligible agricultural activity, and limited industrial diversification. Workers, including the deceased, had no alternative but to work in these dangerous factories, fully aware of the 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 risks, yet without viable options. These are not choices made freely, but under compulsion of survival.
11.The process of fireworks manufacturing involves hazardous materials such as potassium nitrate, potassium perchlorate, barium nitrate, sulphur, and pyrophoric aluminium. The latter reacts violently with moisture to produce hydrogen gas and intense heat. Pellets are often dried under direct sunlight in contravention of safety protocols. In such conditions, accidents are not rare occurrences, but inevitable without strict oversight.
12.Under Rule 11 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, each factory is mandated to appoint a qualified Foreman and a Safety Officer / Supervisor (B.Sc. Chemistry) in the ratio of 1:50 workers. However, these roles are often vacant or filled without proper qualification. The Industrial Safety and Health Department is severely understaffed, and the District Level Safety Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.139, Labour and Employment Department, dated 21.08.2020, has not ensured meaningful 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 oversight. This results in widespread non-compliance and endangerment of lives.
13.Whenever an accident occurs, it has to be reported immediately to the nearby police station and a criminal case will be registered under the Explosives Act along with the other offence. However, it appears that investigations into such accidents are conducted in a mechanical fashion. This Court has called for the entire particulars with regard to the cases registered in the last five years regarding fire accidents. It appears that FIRs registered in the years 2019 and 2020 remain pending in 2024. There is no engagement of explosive experts, no forensic reports, and no meaningful determination of the cause.
14.In fact, Section 9(1) and 9A of the Explosives Act mandate cause- based investigation and remedial recommendations, apart from the criminal investigation. The object of holding such enquiry is to enable the Central Government and the licensing authority to identify the cause of the accident and to ensure that such cause is not repeated elsewhere. But these 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 provisions are routinely overlooked and neither the District Collector nor the Controller of Explosives have suggested any viable remedial measures.
15.The National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 44 of 2021, arising out of the Achankulam accident in Sivakasi, appointed a committee led by Retired Justice K.Kannan. The report found subleasing of licensed premises, overcrowding, untrained workers, chemical mixing in open areas, and locked exits as major causes of the blast. Although the compensation order of Rs.20,00,000/- per deceased has been set aside and remanded for fresh consideration on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the factual findings of the committee remain persuasive and relevant to the instant case.
16.That apart, this Court, in WP(MD) No.12456 of 2019, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to a child injured in a similar accident. The present case, involving death and complete loss of livelihood, demands even a stronger constitutional response.
12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
17.The cumulative effect of illegal licensing, absence of safety measures, ineffective inspections, and casual investigations point to a breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State is liable under public law for failure to protect life in hazardous employment. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the principles in Sanjay Gupta v. State of U.P. [(2022) 7 SCC 203] and Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association v. Union of India [(2011) 14 SCC 481] would fully apply to the case on hand. Due to the action or inaction of the State or its officers, if the fundamental rights of a citizen are infringed, the liability of the State, its officials and instrumentalities is strict.
18.This Court is fully conscious that compensation under public law is not to be awarded lightly or mechanically, and that it must be reserved for cases where there is a demonstrable failure of constitutional obligations. The present case, however, warrants such exercise of jurisdiction. After considering the nature of the accident, the statutory and administrative lapses, the background of the victims, and relevant legal precedents, this Court holds that the compensation to be paid to each of the petitioners 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 must be enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- (inclusive of Rs.1,00,000/- already paid).
19.The reasonings for this Court to arrive at this conclusion are set out below:
(i) Hazardous Nature of Employment:
The deceased were engaged in the fireworks industry, which is not only classified as a “hazardous occupation” under Section 87 of the Factories Act, 1948, but also regulated as a dangerous operation under the Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosives Rules, 2008. The chemical substances handled, such as, potassium nitrate, barium nitrate, sulphur, potassium perchlorate, and pyrophoric aluminium, are inherently unstable and prone to explosive reactions when exposed to friction, heat, or moisture. Despite this, the workers were allowed to operate in unprotected environments, with no formal training, no protective gear, and no regulated safeguards. The working conditions made accidents not just probable but inevitable. 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
(ii) Failure of the State in Discharging its Statutory and Constitutional Duties:
The accident in question is not traceable to isolated mismanagement by a private employer, but is part of a pattern of regulatory failure. There is nothing to show that the conditions of the license were ever monitored or enforced by the licensing body or the safety enforcement authorities. The Explosives Rules, 2008 mandate strict safety protocols, including the appointment of qualified Foremen and Safety Officers, periodic safety audits, and adherence to quantitative and procedural restrictions. None of these safeguards were meaningfully implemented.
The Industrial Safety and Health Department, which bears statutory responsibility to oversee factory safety under the Factories Act and Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, is critically understaffed. The repeated pattern of accidents — 131 deaths and 146 serious injuries between 2019 and 2023 in the region — only suggests a chronic absence of inspection, enforcement, and accountability. The regulatory bodies, despite having knowledge of the 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 hazardous nature of the work and the vulnerability of the workers, have failed to discharge their constitutional obligation under Article 21 to protect the right to life of citizens working in high-risk industries. This lapse cannot be termed as accidental; it is structural and ongoing.
(iii) Comparative Jurisprudence and Constitutional Proportionality:
The Supreme Court in Safai Karamchari Andolan's case (supra) fixed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for sewer deaths. This was later enhanced to Rs.30,00,000/- in Dr.Balram Singh's case (supra), considering the hazardous nature of the work. The logic that guided the Hon’ble Supreme Court in those cases applies with equal, if not greater, force in the case of Sivakasi’s fireworks workers, who work amidst combustible chemicals under constant risk. They are no less vulnerable, nor is the risk they undertake any less fatal. It would be constitutionally impermissible to treat similarly placed hazardous workers differently in terms of relief. 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
(iv) Findings of the Expert Committee and Persuasive Value of NGT’s Report:
Though the compensation order passed by the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 44 of 2021 has been set aside for violation of principles of natural justice and remanded for fresh consideration, the findings of the expert committee led by Justice K.Kannan, former Judge of the Madras and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, remain both instructive and relevant. The committee identified multiple regulatory violations including subleasing of licensed premises, unauthorised workforce, unsafe mixing of explosives in open areas, improper drying practices, and a lack of inspection or supervision. These factors mirror the present case. The Tribunal’s decision to recommend Rs.20,00,000/- per deceased, though set aside on procedural grounds, underscores the scale of institutional failure and the corresponding need for proportionate restitution. 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
(v) Lack of Other Reliefs and Continuing Vulnerability of the Petitioners:
The employer's contribution in this case is a mere Rs.20,000/-. There is no indication of group insurance, ESI coverage, or any enforceable liability fixed on the factory owners. While three of the petitioners have been given employment as Anganwadi Helpers on meagre wages, that cannot be treated as compensation for the permanent and irreparable loss of a breadwinner. The families of the deceased are from socially and economically weaker sections, with dependent children and no sustainable alternative income. The effect of the accident is not only immediate but perpetual, warranting compensation that reflects both the economic and human dimension of the loss.
(vi) Principle of Constitutional Accountability under Public Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and public law liability, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Gupta's case (supra) and Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association's case (supra) squarely apply here. The State cannot escape responsibility where its agencies have failed to prevent an 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 accident in a dangerous industry that it licenses and regulates. The award of compensation is not penal but declaratory of the constitutional breach, and Rs.10,00,000/- per family is a fair, just, and proportionate recognition of the same.
20.In view of the above, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation. Accordingly:
a) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to disburse the balance compensation amount of Rs.9,00,000/- to each of the petitioners (in addition to the Rs.1,00,000/- already paid), within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
b) The Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Government of Tamil Nadu, is directed to ensure strict enforcement of safety norms under the Explosives Act, 1884, Explosives Rules, 2008, the Factories Act, 1948, and the Factories Rules, 1950, including compliance with licensing limits, mandatory appointment of safety personnel, periodic inspections, and safety training. The safety of workers in hazardous industries shall be treated as a matter of utmost priority.
19/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
c) The Chief Controller of Explosives, PESO, Nagpur, shall take necessary steps to scrutinize the licensing practices in Sivakasi and other firework clusters and take appropriate action wherever licenses are found to be issued in excess of the legal limits prescribed under the Explosives Act and Rules.
d) The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, is requested to ensure that fire accidents involving explosives are investigated by personnel equipped with adequate technical knowledge, with due assistance from forensic experts and in accordance with the mandates of Sections 9 and 9A of the Explosives Act.
21.This Court has made extensive observations regarding the recurring fire accidents in Sivakasi, the socio-economic compulsions of its workforce, the breakdown of regulatory enforcement, and the inadequacies in the licensing framework under the Explosives Act and Rules. One particular concern is the severe understaffing in the Industrial Safety and Health Department, which makes it nearly impossible to conduct regular inspections, enforce statutory safety measures, or respond in time to 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 violations. Without adequate technical personnel and supervisory infrastructure, compliance cannot be realistically expected.
22.This Court also expresses its clear expectation that in cases where it is established, upon enquiry or investigation, that the accident occurred due to the fault of the employer, including non-compliance with licensing conditions, safety protocols, or subleasing of premises, the licensing authority shall take appropriate action including cancellation of the licence. The responsibility to regulate hazardous industries is statutory, not discretionary.
23.The State may evolve a structured rehabilitation framework for victims’ families, including education support for children, widow pension, and housing security, so as to address the long-term impact of such industrial tragedies. It is hoped that the Government of Tamil Nadu and the relevant regulatory bodies will take these observations in the right spirit and initiate necessary corrective steps, both in the interest of 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 preventing future tragedies and in upholding the dignity and safety of those who are forced by circumstance to work in such perilous conditions.
With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Internet : Yes 16.05.2025
gk
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Elizhagam, Cheppakkam, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar – 626 002.
3.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.
22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015
5.The Chief Controller of Explosives, A Block CGO Complex, Fifth Floor, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440 006, Maharashtra.
6.The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Sivakasi Sub Circle Office, FRDC Complex, Near ESI Hospital, Sivakasi West, Sivakasi – 626 124.
7.The Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Government of Tamil Nadu, Guindy, Chennai.
23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm ) WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk WP(MD)Nos.23007 to 23010 of 2015 16.05.2025 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 12:19:16 pm )