Rana Plaza and liability of regulators Essay Example

similar establishments. It also includes various types of offices that are part of factories or any industrial or commercial undertaking employing workers for commercial or industrial purposes. Additionally, the definition encompasses other businesses like insurance companies banks clubs hotels restaurants cinemas and theaters.

To improve clarity and consistency in application,the law would benefit from including all establishments by default while maintaining a specific list of exemptions. The scope should be clearly defined to include any trade or business activity providing employment opportunities or contracts for services.The law's definition also encompasses domestic premises where domestic staff work. It is unreasonable that the law only applies to hazardous tasks within a building, as workers may be sent outside. Surprisingly, certain establishments like government offices are not subject to this law. Whether this exemption extends to autonomous bodies, public corporations, exhibition shops, or stalls involved in retail trade at public exhibitions or shows remains uncertain. Accidents have occurred at exhibitions, educational institutions, and other places; however, ordnance factories manufacturing weapons are exempted based on the definition of 'commercial' and industrial establishments and exemptions stated in section 1(4) of the 2006 Labor Law. Individuals managing organizations for "profit and gain" are immune from negligence under this law; however, this contradicts our Constitution. The broad exemption raises significant concerns since many government bodies engage in hazardous activities. The meaning of "offices of or under the government" is ambiguous as it is unclear whether it includes government corporations and autonomous bodies. For example, rural electrification committees should not be exempted from the law as their employees face fatal injuries each year due to hazardous work.India has made efforts to provide immunity to

government officials, religious institutions, and government offices. The Indian Supreme Court has clarified that industrial work, which does not involve spiritual or religious aspects, refers to organized activity by employers and employees for the production or distribution of goods and services. The presence of profit motive or gainful objective is not relevant and applies to both public and private sectors. Legislation on workplace safety and health includes provisions for information, training, and supervision of workers. However, it is necessary for our country's laws to specify additional requirements concerning information, training, and supervision.

It is now widely accepted globally that risk assessments are the most effective approach for managing workplace safety and health. This approach is outlined in various ILO conventions. Risk assessments require employers to identify hazards faced by workers, evaluate the level of risks (including potential harm and likelihood), and determine necessary measures to reduce these risks. To ensure workplace safety, a hierarchy of controls should be implemented including eliminating hazards, implementing engineering controls, using safe work methods, and providing protective clothing.

It should be noted that there are no specified provisions in the law regarding the provision of personal protective equipment.Section 62(1) of the labor law as well as Rules 51 and 52 of the Factories Rules outline fire safety obligations. However, these obligations do not cover certain areas such as weight limits for workers carrying loads based on age, condition, and sex; availability of alternative staircases or other safety devices in case of fire; and worker-toilet ratio. Overseas buyers insist on compliance with these conditions even though they are not specified in our national law.
Despite criticism for its ambiguity and limitations, the law grants

regulators and inspectors significant authority to enforce safety standards for workers. Enforcement can take the form of prosecution for offenses related to health, safety, and welfare. Such offenses include operating unguarded machinery, failure to provide notice of an impending accident, causing death or grievous bodily harm, and causing any other harm.
Factory inspectors have various enforcement powers and can take punitive action during sudden inspections against anyone who contravenes or fails to comply with the law or related rules. The punishment for these offenses can result in a fine of up to TX 5,000. This applies to breaches involving health, safety, and welfare that are not covered by the aforementioned offenses. Repeat convictions may double the fine or lead to imprisonment.Prosecution can occur if an employer fails in their duty. Additionally, individuals such as directors, partners, shareholders, managers, secretaries or representatives who played a significant role in the company may also be held responsible if the company is prosecuted. However, they can avoid accountability by proving their lack of knowledge or consent or demonstrating that they made efforts to prevent the offense.

The government's regulatory authority has the power to assess the condition or equipment of a building to determine its potential threat to human life or safety (as stated in Sec 61(1)). They are authorized to issue a written directive to an employer specifying necessary changes that must be implemented within a specified timeframe. According to Sec 61(2), if any part of a building or machinery immediately poses a risk to human life or safety, the authority has the right to prohibit its use until proper repairs or alterations are completed.

Under Sec 62(1), they can also

issue an order requiring an establishment to implement separate fire escapes within a designated time period. In situations where there is reason to believe that a machine, plant, or section of a building could potentially endanger human life or safety (Sec 76), the authority can request an employer for submission of structural drawings or conduct tests.Section 85(1) grants the regulator discretionary power to take action if hazardous conditions are found in an establishment that could endanger lives and cause physical harm. The regulator will provide specific instructions to the employer on how to address the situation within a specified timeframe, communicating directly with them. Section 85(2) empowers the authority to order the demolition of an entire building if any pillar is at risk of collapsing or poses a danger. Similarly, Section 83(3) allows the authority to prohibit demolition of an establishment if it poses a threat to worker safety.

The owner will be informed through written communication, and employment will be halted until the danger is resolved. In response to a writ petition filed by human rights organizations in 2007, alleging that approximately 50 construction workers died due to inadequate enforcement and implementation of laws, the High Court issued an order on February 29th, 2008. This order required the government to explain within four weeks why their failure to establish an agency for enforcing Bangladesh National Building Construction Code 2006 should not be considered a violation. Additionally, they were asked to submit details of steps taken since November 15th, 2006 towards ensuring construction worker safety as outlined in this Code.Despite regulatory authorities claiming to be understaffed for enforcing regulations, there have been no nationwide actions taken

against offenders. The authority currently has 45 inspectors and other staff members but has not used its power to shut down "business organizations" as a preventive measure. Bangladeshi bureaucrats enjoy complete immunity from intentional and unintentional negligence. Shouldn't we hold team Tort responsible for safeguarding citizens against accidents and employer neglect? How can we guarantee their consistent response to all non-compliant offenders?