Indian Workplace Culture Under Scrutiny After Tragic Death

Private firms not exempt

The entire workforce is shocked and saddened by the tragic passing of an Ernst & Young employee. Reports suggest that the death may be linked to work-related stress, sparking justified anger over the unhealthy work culture and conditions. This incident has reignited calls for improved mental health rights in the workplace.

In response to the outrage, the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment condemned the situation and urged the Maharashtra government to investigate the matter. While it is uncommon for public authorities to intervene in private companies, they are fully entitled to do so under the relevant labor laws. Private companies are not exempt from these regulations.

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 establishes regulations for the working conditions of individuals employed in various establishments. The definitions of ’employee’ and ‘establishment’ encompass the entire workforce, thereby including private and corporate companies within its scope.

Chapter III of the Code outlines the responsibilities of both employers and employees. Section 6(1)(d) mandates that every employer must provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and does not pose health risks to employees, as far as reasonably practicable. This requirement should be considered alongside Chapters V and VI of the Code, which detail the working conditions for which employers are responsible to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of employees.

However, the Code does not specify what constitutes ‘reasonably practicable working conditions,’ leaving it entirely to the Central government to define these conditions over time. Some conditions listed in Sections 23 and 24 address physical aspects of health and safety, such as hygiene, ventilation, water supply, lighting, and washroom facilities.

Currently, the provisions concerning employee health focus primarily on physical attributes and appearances, neglecting psychological well-being. Given that the Indian legal system recognizes mental distress, it is surprising that the Code, being a recent piece of legislation, overlooks this aspect in its regulations on working conditions.

Indian Workplace Culture Under Scrutiny After Tragic Death The Code on Social Security, 2020, which consolidates the Employee Compensation Act, 1923, among other laws, provides compensation to employees in cases of accidents or occupational diseases. ‘Employment injury’ is defined as any personal injury resulting from an accident or disease that occurs in the course of employment. The Code also outlines compensation for an employee’s death, but this is limited to fatalities caused by an accident or disease related to their job.

Cases such as Laxmibai Atmaram and Shantaben Thakor have addressed compensation for deaths resulting from strain or overwork during employment, but these considerations primarily reflect the physical burdens on employees. One could argue that the definition of ‘personal injury’ should be broadened to encompass psychological harm or mental distress. However, the narrow interpretation of the legislation, without precedents to support a different understanding, leaves little room for modification.

Indian Workplace Culture Under Scrutiny After Tragic Death Many precedents in English courts have acknowledged the concept of work-related stress. In one notable case, the court extended the employer’s responsibility to safeguard employees’ mental health. The Indian legal system also recognizes the tort of emotional distress, allowing courts to award punitive damages to protect mental peace and well-being.

In the case of Mrs. HI Halligua v. Mohanasundaram and Anr, the Madras High Court established that physical injury should not be the sole basis for determining liability; psychological harm must also be taken into account. The court held the defendant accountable for causing mental anguish to the plaintiff. However, this legal principle has not been extended to include psychological harm within labor laws.

Indian Workplace Culture Under Scrutiny After Tragic Death According to the GOQii report, at least 26% of Indians experience workplace stress, primarily due to long working hours and intense competition. Medical experts have noted that mental distress significantly affects a person’s physical health. It is unjust to expect employees to resign due to excessive work pressure, nor should such conditions be romanticized or normalized.

Controlling every detail of employment conditions is not feasible and can lead to unnecessary disputes that may escalate into prolonged legal battles. While it’s acknowledged that providing a comprehensive definition of a safe working environment is challenging, employers must ensure their employees are not subjected to undue stress.

Tort law, often viewed as a remedial framework, remains uncodified and its terms are vague. The enforcement of regulations can lead to either collaborative or adversarial relationships between public authorities and private companies, depending on the context. However, when the law prioritizes public interest, that law prevails.

Therefore, amending existing Codes to include employee mental distress, along with the necessary preventive measures by employers, could be a significant step toward improving workplace conditions. This inclusion should protect not only corporate employees but also unorganized and other workers, whose mental health is equally important.

Indian Workplace Culture Under Scrutiny After Tragic Death As society progresses, so too must the law. Therefore, it is essential for regulations to evolve in response to the changing work culture.

While the investigation into the EY case is ongoing, Parliament should also consider revisiting the legislation to align with the evolving circumstances.