Death of a Young Labourer at Sai Stone Crusher and Administrative Silence on Labour Law Violations

 

Death of a Young Labourer at Sai Stone Crusher and Administrative Silence on Labour Law Violations

NHRC Case Analysis

(Diary No. 1938/IN/2024 | Case No. 59/35/7/2024)

By Lenin Raghuvanshi

(Human Rights Defender)

The death of a worker during the course of employment is not an “accident” when it occurs in hazardous conditions without safety measures. The case of Aadarsh, a young college student who died after being buried under sand at Sai Stone Crusher in the Swar area of Kashipur, exposes not only employer negligence but also systemic failure of labour law enforcement authorities.

This blog analyses the case as monitored by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), highlighting how compensation was paid through a private compromise, while serious labour law violations and official negligence remain unaddressed.

Case Identification

• NHRC Diary No.: 1938/IN/2024

• NHRC Case/File No.: 59/35/7/2024

• Victim: Aadarsh (Male)

• Incident Date: January 2024

• Incident Place: Sai Stone Crusher, Swar area, Kashipur

• Victim’s Background: College student working as a labourer to support his impoverished family

• Incident Category: Death during hazardous employment

• Complainant: Lenin Raghuvanshi

• Mode of Complaint: HRCNet (Online)

• Registration Date: 07 February 2024

Incident as Reported

According to the complaint and subsequent official reports:

• The victim died after being buried under sand at a stone crusher

• He was working in hazardous conditions without any safety equipment

• Police allegedly misbehaved with the victim’s family at the incident site

• It was alleged that multiple workers had lost their lives over the years at the same establishment

The victim’s death was medically confirmed as:

“Due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.”

Findings from Police and Spot Inspection

Reports submitted by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh and SP, Rampur revealed critical facts:

• Workers were not provided any safety equipment

• The stone crusher owner failed to produce mandatory registers, including:

  • Wage details

  • Attendance

  • Number of workers

  • Salary records

• These findings clearly established ongoing violations of labour laws

Despite this, police concluded an enquiry under Section 174 CrPC stating that no offence was made out, while simultaneously acknowledging labour law violations.

Compensation Through “Compromise”

A report dated 10 May 2024 stated that:

• A compromise was reached between the stone crusher owner and the victim’s family

• ₹11,00,000 was paid to the Next of Kin (NoK)

• Proof of payment was submitted to NHRC

While compensation is important, the NHRC noted that payment of money does not absolve responsibility for statutory violations.

Failure of the Labour Department

Repeated Non-Response

Despite multiple directions from the NHRC:

• The Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, repeatedly failed to submit action-taken reports

• The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rampur, did not respond to:

  • Police communications dated 26.06.2024 and 31.07.2024

  • NHRC directions dated 10.04.2024 and 31.05.2024

Silence on Labour Law Violations

Even when the Labour Commissioner finally submitted a report (15.10.2024), it:

• Merely repeated that compensation had been paid

• Was completely silent on violations of labour laws, despite:

  • Absence of safety equipment

  • Non-maintenance of statutory registers

  • Death during employment

NHRC’s Strong Observations

The Commission categorically observed that:

• Enforcement of labour laws is the primary responsibility of the Labour Department

• Silence and inaction by labour officials amounted to negligence

• Failure to inspect and act against the stone crusher establishment could invite future mishaps

• The approach of the Labour Department reflected institutional apathy

---

Conditional Summon and Escalation

Due to continued non-compliance:

• NHRC issued a Conditional Summon under Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh (11.09.2024)

• The Commission warned that failure to respond could lead to coercive action

• Even thereafter, no substantive action on labour law enforcement was reported

Direction to the Chief Secretary

Recognizing persistent defiance:

• NHRC directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to submit an Action Taken Report regarding labour law violations

• The Commission explicitly stated that:

  Failure would be presumed as “nothing to urge” and may invite show-cause notice under Section 18 of PHRA

As of the latest proceedings (January 2025), requisite reports were still not submitted, leading to a final reminder.

Human Rights Analysis

Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity

A worker’s right to life includes:

• Safe working conditions

• Protection from hazardous employment

• Effective enforcement of labour laws

Death due to unsafe conditions is a direct violation of Article 21.

Compensation Is Not Accountability

While ₹11 lakh compensation was paid:

• No prosecution under labour laws is evident

• No inspection-based enforcement action is recorded

• No accountability of labour officials has been fixed

This reflects normalisation of “pay and forget” culture.

State Complicity Through Inaction

When authorities:

• Ignore statutory violations

• Fail to inspect hazardous workplaces

• Remain silent despite repeated NHRC directions

The State becomes complicit in structural violence against workers.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that:

• A young worker died in clearly unsafe conditions

• Employer violations were officially documented

• Labour authorities failed in their statutory duty

• NHRC had to repeatedly escalate the matter to the Chief Secretary

Yet, labour law enforcement remains absent.

Final Reflection

Compensation may soothe grief, but silence of enforcement invites the next death.

If labour laws are not enforced after a fatality, they exist only on paper.

The dignity of labour cannot depend on compromise—it demands accountability.