National Green Tribunal
News Item Titled Maharashtra: 22 ... vs Member Secretary Maharashtra State ... on 7 April, 2026
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 181/2024 (WZ)
NEWS ITEM TITLED "MAHARASHTRA: 22 WORKERS INJURED
IN BOILER EXPLOSION AT STEEL FACTORY IN JALNA"
APPEARING IN INDIA TV DATED 24.08.2024
Reserved on : 18.03.2026
Pronounced on : 07.04.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Respondents : Mr. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-1/MPCB
Mr. Raghunath Mahabal, Advocate along-with
Mr. Sachin Subhash Gore, Advocate for R-4/PP
ORDER
1. This order is being passed by us in continuation with previous order dated 07.01.2026.
2. In compliance with previous order dated 07th January, 2026, respondent no. 5-DISH has submitted his additional reply dated 20.06.2026, when it is submitted that wet charge material, sealed scrap like fire extinguisher, cylinders, containers are all safety hazards that can lead to catastrophic explosions in induction furnace. By diligently examining, screening and treating scrap properly, training and retraining workers are the remedial measures to avoid splashing of material from furnace dryers and preheaters help to remove water and moisture before the scrap enters the furnace. Sealed containers containing combustible material may explode while scraping before the scrap melts itself. Triple checks are done to avoid such incidents.
3. Further, it is mentioned, two induction furnace are installed in a factory adjacent to each other. When one furnace is working, the other is under maintenance for use in next cycle. There should be safety curtains Page 1 of 6 in between, so that the workers can be protected from splashing. A metallic safety curtain of sufficient size has been provided in between the working furnace and the furnace on which maintenance work is carried out, which provides protection to the workers from splashing of molten metal. The effectiveness of the safety curtain is reviewed periodically and improvement are carried out wherever necessary.
4. Further, it is mentioned that personal protective equipments are provided to protect melt shop workers from both metal splash and radiant heat. The management is taking all reasonably and practicable measures for the safety of workers.
5. The scrap material and obstructions are being regularly cleared from furnace platforms, floors and passages work areas are maintained in safe working condition. Scattering of scrap material was promptly removed and housekeeping measures have been reinforced.
6. Regular safety audits are being instituted to ensure compliance with all applicable safety regulations and standards. Further, it is mentioned that the material is transferred by using magnet, to avoid material fall from height due to failure of electricity. The power backup is made available to avoid fall of material.
7. From a perusal of this affidavit, it is clear that, as per DISH the industry has taken all necessary steps and precautions, so that no such occurrence takes place in future.
8. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4- Gajkesari Steel & Alloys Private Limited has filed compilation of law points on 17.03.2026. The list of all employees dead and discharged from the hospital is given in tabular form as below:-
Page 2 of 6
"
"
9. It is further mentioned that the said details have been submitted at the direction of this Tribunal. But the acceptability of the judgment of Sarla Verma is not admitted by them, for the reasons given in the following paragraphs. The main emphasis has been laid on Section 17(1) of the NGT Act 2010, which specifically empowers the Tribunal to determine relief and compensation for death or injury to "any person (other than a workman)" resulting from an accident or adverse impact of an activity specified in Schedule-I. This does not enable Hon'ble Tribunal to adjudicate the matters of compensation to the 'workman'. Drawing attention to the above table, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 urged that the amount, which is due to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, as per Sarla Verma's case is given in the above given tabular Page 3 of 6 chart in Column 'J', which is indicated for all the seven deceased workmen. It is apprised by him that in Column 'K', the difference of amount is mentioned, which would have to be paid by the Project Proponent, in case, it is held by this Tribunal that the amount has to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the judgment of Sarla Verma's case. But, he has vehemently relied upon Section 17(1) of the NGT Act, 2010, which provides that in the case where the death occurs of the workman, his case will not be covered by the Sarla Verma's case, rather the amount of compensation would be paid to such a workman, in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act, which has already been done in the case in hand and the total compensation has already been given in Column 'G' in the above table. We recollect that in our judgment dated 09.02.2026 in 'News items titled "Four workers killed in storage tank explosion at Gujrat Industrial Unit" appearing in the Hindu dated 03.12.2024', the following order has been passed by this Tribunal.
"2. Thereafter, the learned counsel for respondent no.5-Detox India Pvt. Ltd./project proponent has placed before us the orders passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.150/2023, In re: news item in NDTV dated 28.02.2023 titled "2 Dead, 2 Injured in Explosion at Gujarat Pharma Company", wherein in paragraphs no. 5 and 6, following is recorded:
"5. On the issue of bar under section 17 of the NGT Act for claims in respect of workmen, it was held that the said bar will apply only if the PP has paid such compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act or any other law and not otherwise, object of bar being to avoid duplication and if no compensation has been paid, NGT can award compensation atleast at floor level. Reference may only be made to latest order dated 28.2.2023 (sr. no. 29 in the foot note) as follows:
"15. In OA 09/2021, "In re: News item published in The Indian Express dated 07.01.2021 titled "Four workers dead due to toxic gas leak in Rourkela Steel Plant", vide order dated 11.02.2021, it was held that bar under section 17 of the NGT Act will not apply when compensation under Workmen Compensation Page 4 of 6 has not been paid as is the situation herein. Observations from the said order are extracted below:
"On due consideration, we are unable to accept the submission of learned ASG that bar of section 17 NGT Act is applicable. The deceased are not, even according to the RSP, covered by the definition of 'workmen' under the Workmen Compensation Act. RSP has not paid them on that basis. Applicability of ESI Act does not exclude the NGT Act as section 17 is not attracted to such a case. Moreover, unless expressly excluded, jurisdiction of this Tribunal for victims of violation of environmental norms stands. For this, section 33 of the NGT Act provides for overriding effect of the said Act. Thus, the RSP can be required to provide compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 15 of the NGT Act. Liability to pay compensation for an entity engaged in hazardous activity is absolute as per law laid down in M.C. Mehta, (1987) 1 SCC 395. Minimum such liability is as per restitution principle, though deterrent compensation can be awarded, depending on a fact situation. In awarding such compensation, compensation paid under any other provision can certainly be excluded. Thus, in the present case, the heirs of the deceased will be entitled to compensation which we propose to determine minus the compensation, if any, which may have been paid under any other provision. Needless to say that victims of such accident are normally, as in the present case also, poorest of the poor. Stand that death was by negligence of the victims is untenable and even if true, absolute liability is not excluded at least on restitution basis. Prima facie, the stand of RSP is not acceptable in absence of showing compliance of statutory safeguards under the 1989 Rules framed under the EP Act, which can be enforced by this Tribunal. No details of mock drills have ben filed nor onsite and offsite plans produced. We are not debarring the RSP from producing the same before the Committee which we are appointing. The fact remains that there is much to be desired in terms of statutory compliances."
6. Thus, while if workmen are covered by the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and are paid compensation under the provisions of the said Act, there can be no claim under the NGT Act, where compensation under Workmen Compensation Act has not been paid by the PP, the said bar will not apply and NGT can direct payment of floor level compensation at the rate mentioned above, the PP has to be held liable to pay such compensation. The liability to pay compensation is over and above accountability under criminal law and statutory regulators have to ensure that safety protocols are duly observed in conducting such industrial activity which is hazardous and has potential for loss of human lives." Page 5 of 6
3. Having drawn attention to the above, it is urged by the learned counsel that the above citation would make it clear that in case, the deceased/workmen had been paid compensation under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, in such situation, the Sarla Verma case (supra) would not be applicable.
4. After having gone through the above judgment as well as the facts being presented in case, we agree with the argument of the learned counsel for applicant and are of the view that since all four deceased/workmen have already been paid more than the amount which was required to be paid under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no additional compensation needs to be paid."
10. In accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act, no additional payment of the amount of EDC can be thrust upon the Project Proponent to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
10. Hence, this application deserves to be disposed of without any additional direction.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM April 07, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 181/2024 (WZ) F.K Page 6 of 6