The entire workforce is shocked and dismayed by the tragic death of the Ernst & Young employee. As per reports, the death seems to be associated with work-related stress, making people justifiably enraged by the unhealthy work culture and conditions. The incident has reignited advocacy for mental health rights in such spaces.
Following the outrage, the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment, while condemning the situation, asked the Maharashtra government to investigate the matter. While it is unusual for a public authority to enter the domain of a private company, it is well within the jurisdiction of the concerned authority. The government draws its rights and powers from the extensive labour laws of the country, and the private companies are not immune to the laws.
The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 provides for laws regulating working conditions of persons employed in an establishment. The definitions provided for ’employee’ and ‘establishment’ cover the entire spectrum of the workforce, consequently bringing private or corporate companies within its ambit. Chapter III of the Code provides for the duties of the employer and employees. Section 6(1)(d) states that every employer shall provide and maintain, as far as reasonably practicable, a working environment that is safe and without the risk to the health of the employees. This is to be read conjointly with Chapter V and VI of the Code, which enlist the working conditions the employer is responsible for to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the employees.
The Code does not elaborate on what ‘reasonably practicable working conditions’ are, and the conditions are completely founded on what the Central government notifies time to time. Some such conditions provided under Sections 23 and 24 pertain to outer bodily aspects of health and safety such as hygiene, ventilation, water, lighting, washrooms etc. The provisions on an employee’s health currently focuses on merely their physical appearance and attributes, and does not dwell into the psychological health conditions of the employees. The Indian legal system is no alien to the concept of mental distress, and so the absence of the same under the working conditions is astounding, since the Code is a recent piece of legislation.
The Code on Social Security, 2020, which consolidates the Employee Compensation Act, 1923 and others, provides compensation to the employee in the event of an accident or occupational disease. ‘Employment injury’ is defined as that personal injury which is caused by accident or disease arising out of and in the course of employment. The Code further provides for compensation for the death of the employee, but the same is limited to the death caused by an accident or disease during the employment.
While cases such as Laxmibai Atmaram and Shantaben Thakor have dealt with employee’s compensation upon death caused by strain or over-working during employment, these factors, however, constitute only the physical burden of the employee. One may argue that the meaning of ‘personal injury’ must be expanded to include psychological harm or mental distress. However, a restricted construction of legislation sans any precedents to interpret it otherwise, leaves no room for any alteration.
Many English court precedents have recognised the idea of work-induced stress. In one such matter, the court extended the employer’s duty to protect the mental health of the employees. The Indian legal system recognises the tort of emotional distress, and to protect the mental peace and well-being, the court may grant punitive damages. In Mrs HI Halligua v. Mohanasundaram and Anr, the concept of emotional distress evolved when the Madras High Court held that physical injury was not the benchmark to construe liability, but that psychological harm should also be considered. The Court held the defendant liable for causing mental anguish to the plaintiff. However, this jurisprudence has not been expanded to include psychological harm in the labour laws.
As per the GOQii report, at least 26% of Indians suffer from stress due to their workplace; long working hours and fierce competition are the top contributors. Medical experts have claimed that mental distress hugely impacts a person’s physical functioning. It is unfair to expect that employees resign for not meeting undue work pressure, nor should such conditions be romanticised or normalised. Naturally, it is not possible to control the minutiae of the conditions or terms of employment, nor is it favoured, since this leads to superfluous disputes eventually turning into long-drawn legal battles. And while it is an agreed notion that it is difficult to provide an all-encompassing formula as to what is and is not considered to be a safe environment, employers must ensure that their employees are not working under undue stress.
Tort law, which may be considered remedial, is uncodified, and the terms and conditions around it are ambiguous. With the enforcement of regulations, the relationship between public authorities and private companies could be collaborative or adversarial, depending on the circumstances. But where the law favours the public interest, that law takes precedence. Hence, the Codes being amended to include mental distress of the employees, with the requisite preventive measures to be provided by the employers, could be the first step in making the workplace a better place. This inclusion must shield not just corporate employees, but also unorganised and other workers, whose mental health is equally relevant.
As society evolves, so does the law. Hence, with the changing times surrounding work culture, it becomes imperative that the rules advance accordingly.
While the investigation into the EY case continues, Parliament at the same time may also revisit the legislation, and be on par with the shifting circumstances.
Shaivika Agrawal is an advocate.
Page source : Bar and Bench
