Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health (OSH), the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 115 (radiation protection), 127 (maximum weight), 136 (benzene) and 174 (major industrial accidents) together.

Legislative developments and application in practice of Conventions Nos 115, 127, 136 and 174. The Committee notes the adoption of the Occupational Safety and Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, consolidating provisions of 13 laws, including the Factories Act, 1948 and the Mining Act, 1952. It observes, however, that pending the entry into force of the Code, the Factories Act, 1948, remains in force. In this regard, the Committee notes the statistics in the report of the Government, including the number of recorded convictions under the Factories Act, 1948, which rose from 2,563 in 2020 to 4,280 in 2022. In addition, the Government indicates that 839 fatal injuries were recorded in 2022. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to ensure the full application of the ratified Conventions on OSH in practice, as well as statistics of violations detected, of occupational accidents and diseases, and the measures taken to reduce their number. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken towards the entry into force of the Code.

Article 2(2) of Convention No. 127. Article 1 of Convention No. 136. Article 1 of Convention No. 174. Scope of application. Small factories. Following its previous comments, concerning factories falling outside the scope of the Factories Act, 1948, the Committee observes that the Occupational Safety and Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 has a narrower scope of application than the Factories Act, 1948. Pursuant to section 2(w) of the Code, only factories using the aid of power with 20 or more workers; or factories without the aid of power with 40 or more workers, are covered by the Code. Pursuant to section 81 of the Code, the appropriate governments are empowered to notify that the Code or parts of it applies to any place wherein a manufacturing process is carried out, irrespective of the number of workers working therein. The Committee recalls that the scope of application of the Conventions at issue is not restricted by the size of undertakings. The Committeerequests the Government to provide information on the application ofthe Conventions to factories excluded from the scope of the Factories Act and the Code.

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Article 6(2) of Convention No. 115. Dose limits. Pregnant and breastfeeding workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the dose limits applicable to pregnant workers and breastfeeding workers under the safety manual of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) AERB/SM/0-2 (Radiation Protection for Nuclear Facilities), are being revised to align with the dose limit of 1 mSv in the latest recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The Committee observes that the AERB Directive No. 01/2011, for its part, prescribes a dose limit of 1 mSv for pregnant workers but does not refer to breastfeeding workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the developments regarding therevision of thesafety manual AERB/SM/0-2. It also requests the Government to provide clarifications as to the different dose limits found in the safety manual, compared with the AERB Directive No. 01/2011, and to specify whether the dose limit applicable to pregnant workers (1 mSv) under the AERB Directive No. 01/2011, applies equally to breastfeeding workers.

Article 13. Medical surveillance and records of individual doses. Following its previous comments on the application of this Article to temporary workers, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the centralized National Occupational Dose Registry System keeps records of the exposure of all workers to ionizing radiations, including temporary workers, until 30 years after the termination of their employment, or until the workers attains 75 years of age, whichever is later. The Government further indicates that no cases of radiation exposure in excess of the prescribed dose limits were recorded in the period 2016–20. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127)

Articles 3 and 7 of Convention No. 127. Manual transport of a load likely to jeopardize the health and safety of the worker. Young workers. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that it will send information, when available, regarding the state governments that have adopted State Factories Rules under section 34(2) of the Factories Act, 1948, prescribing the maximum weights which may be lifted. The Committee notes that, pursuant to section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 and its Second Schedule, the Central Government shall issue notifications of OSH standards, which include standards on the maximum weights to be lifted or moved by workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to adopt, under section 18 of the Code, once it enters into force, Rules prescribing the maximum weights which may be lifted, including information on provisions limiting the assignment of young workers to manual transport of loads. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further information on how it ensures, in practice, that workers are not required or permitted to engage in the manual transport of a load which, by reason of its weight, is likely to jeopardize his health or safety. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any other developments related to raising the age limit for the manual transport of loads.

Benzene Convention, 1971 (No. 136)

Article 10 of Convention No. 136. Provision of free medical examinations. Following its previous comments on measures to ensure that, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, all workers employed in factories using benzene are provided with free medical examinations, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is general compliance with the requirement under Schedule XIV of the Uttar Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950 that workers shall not bear any expenses for medical examinations. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention, 1993 (No. 174)

Articles 20 and 21. Rights and duties of workers and their representatives. Following its previous comments on the provisions prescribing the rights and duties of safety committee members, the Committee notes that the Government refers to provisions contained in Rules adopted prior to the adoption of the Code on OSH and Working Conditions, 2020. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the provisions giving effect to Articles 20 and 21, once the harmonization of state Rules with the Code on OSH and Working Conditions 2020 has been completed.

Article 20(e). Imminent danger. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, pursuant to section 89(1) of the Code on OSH and Working Conditions, 2020, workers employed in any factory engaged in a hazardous process who have reasonable apprehension that there is a likelihood of imminent danger to their lives or health due to any accident, may notify the occupier, agent, manager or any other person who is in charge of the factory or the process concerned, directly or through their representatives. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions setting out that workers and their representatives, within the scope of their job and without being placed at any disadvantage, shall take corrective action and, if necessary, interrupt the activity where, on the basis of their training and experience, they have reasonable justification to believe that there is an imminent danger of a major accident (Article 20(e)).

Article 22. Responsibility of exporting States. The Committee requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the provisions giving effect to Article 22, once the harmonization of state Rules with the Code on OSH and Working Conditions 2020 has been completed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health (OSH), the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 115 (radiation protection) and 174 (major industrial accidents) together.

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Articles 6(2) and 7(2) of Convention No. 115. Dose limits. Lens of the eye. Following its previous comments on the maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that it is in the process of reviewing dose limits for the lens of the eye, currently fixed at 150 millisieverts (mSv) in a year, which is higher than the latest recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The Government indicates that a decision regarding this revision would be made after analysis of the data collected by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board from various facilities where exposure may occur. The Committee recalls that, according to Article 6(2), maximum permissible doses and amounts shall be kept under constant review in the light of current knowledge, and that the ICRP recommends: (i) for radiation workers, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 20 mSv per year, averaged over defined periods of five years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv per year; and (ii) for students between the ages of 16 and 18 who use sources of radiation in the course of their studies, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 20 mSv per year. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to review the maximum permissible doses established, in light of current knowledge, in accordance with Article 6(2), and to provide information on the measures taken in this regard.

Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents Convention, 1993 (No. 174)

Article 4 of Convention No. 174. National policy concerning the protection of workers, the public and the environment against the risk of major accidents. Following its previous comments on the implementation of the national policy concerning protection against the risk of major accidents, the Committee notes the information provided in the report of the Government regarding the legislation at the central level and in the States of Arunanchal Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Tripura. The Committee observes that the Government refers to both rules adopted under the Factories Act, 1948, and to the Code on OSH and Working Conditions 2020 which will repeal the Factories Act, 1948, once it enters into force. Furthermore, pursuant to section 18 and the Second Schedule of the Code on OSH and Working Conditions 2020, the Central Government must issue OSH standards for factories covering a range of matters, including prevention and protection against fire and explosions. The Committee also observes an absence of information regarding the periodic review of the National Policy on Safety and the Environment of 2009 concerning the risk of major accidents, which it noted in its previous comment. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to Article 4 of the Convention, the national policy concerning the protection of workers, the public and the environment against the risk of major accidents, must be coherent and periodically reviewed, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers and with other interested parties who may be affected. The Committee further notes the statistics provided by the Government, noting fatal injuries due to explosions in factories (104 in 2020, 102 in 2021 and 60 in 2022). Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give full effect to Article 4 of Convention No. 174 in law and in practice, by ensuring that a coherent national policy concerning the protection of workers, the public and the environment against the risk of major accidents is formulated, implemented and periodically reviewed, in consultation with the social partners and other interested parties who may be affected. It requests the Government to provide further information on any standards concerning protection against the risk of major accidents, adopted under the Code on OSH and Working Conditions 2020, including any regulations adopted on matters covered by the Second Schedule of the Code.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope of application. Further to its previous comment on the effect given to Article 1 of the Convention, the Committee notes from the Government’s report the updated information on the notifications by states and union territories under section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948, required in order to make the Act applicable to factories handling benzene. The Committee notes with interest that notifications appear to have now been issued by most of the states and union territories which have manufacturing units of benzene. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the states and union territories which have issued such a notification under section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948.

Article 10. Provision of free medical examinations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in the state of Rajasthan, the costs of medical examinations borne by the occupier are not transferred to the workers. Concerning the information requested by the Committee on measures taken in the state of Uttar Pradesh ensuring that workers in factories of less than five employees are provided with free medical examinations, the Government indicates that information is currently being sought from the Chief Inspector of Factories. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken in the state of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that all workers employed in factories using benzene are provided with free medical examinations, irrespective of the number of employees in the factory.

Application in practice. The Committee takes note of the detailed statistical information provided by the Government concerning the number of registered factories by state or union territory and the number of workers employed in these factories, broken down by gender, for 2012. It also notes that in 2013, factory inspectors conducted 127,555 inspection visits, of which 14,072 concerned hazardous factories. It further takes note of the statistics concerning legal proceedings initiated and the penalties applied for the year 2012. The Committee encourages the Government to provide more specific information in relation to the application of the Convention in practice, including statistics on the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation, the number and nature of contraventions reported, the number and nature of cases of occupational disease and the number of cases of poisoning reported.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to its previous requests on Article 16 of the Convention, on off-site emergency preparedness, Article 18, concerning inspections, and Article 19, concerning the right to suspend operations.

Article 4. National policy concerning the protection of workers, the public and the environment against the risk of major accidents. The Committee previously noted the elements of the National Policy on Safety and the Environment of 2009 concerning the risk of major accidents, and in particular the measures of the Policy’s Action Programme aimed at the prevention of catastrophes. It requested the Government to provide further information on the measures taken in line with this National Policy. The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that the comprehensive legislation on the safety, health and welfare of workers, the Factories Act, 1948, and the rules framed thereunder, is enforced by state governments. The Government indicates that it is therefore for state governments to take adequate measures to prevent major accidents or catastrophes in the factories registered under the Factories Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken by state governments to implement the national policy concerning the protection of workers, the public and the environment against the risk of major accidents. It also requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to periodically review this policy, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Convention.

Articles 20 and 21. Rights and duties of workers and their representatives. The Committee notes that the Government, in reply to its previous comments, refers to section 41G of the Factories Act which states that a safety committee shall be set up in every factory where a hazardous process takes place. Section 41G(2) states that the composition of such safety committees, and the rights and duties of its members, shall be such as may be prescribed. The Committee requests the Government to provide extracts of the state rules adopted, or any other regulations, which prescribe the rights and duties of the members of safety committees established in factories where a hazardous process takes place.

Article 20(e). Imminent danger. The Committee notes that under section 41H of the Factories Act workers employed in any factory engaged in a hazardous process who have reasonable apprehension that there is a likelihood of imminent danger to their lives or health due to any accident, may bring this to the notice of the occupier, agent, manager, person in charge or the inspector, directly or through their representatives in the safety committee. The Committee recalls that pursuant to Article 20(e) of the Convention, workers and their representatives have a duty, within the scope of their job and without being placed at any disadvantage, to not only notify their supervisor, but also to take corrective action. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to give full effect to Article 20(e) of the Convention.

Article 22. Responsibility of exporting States. The Committee notes that the Government, in reply to the Committee’s previous request, once again refers to section 18 of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989, which addresses the import of hazardous chemicals to India. The Committee recalls that Article 22 of the Convention provides for the responsibility of exporting States to collect and communicate information to importing States regarding any prohibition of the use of hazardous substances, technologies or processes regarded as potential sources of a major accident. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that information on any prohibitions in India on the use of hazardous substances, technologies or processes as a potential source of a major accident is made available to any importing country.

Application in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are 1,756 major accident hazard factories in the country in which 225 hazardous chemicals are stored or handled and that 1,448 emergency plans have been prepared for these factories. In 2013, the State Labour Inspection services conducted 14,072 visits to hazardous factories. With respect to the port sector, inspectors for dock safety in 2014 carried out 39 visits to major hazard installations, such as isolated storage places and pipelines. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Article 2(2) of the Convention. Scope of application of the Convention. Small factories. The Committee previously noted that section 2(m)(i) and (ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 limits the application of the Act to manufacturing units with ten or more workers (with aid of power) or 20 or more workers (without aid of power). Section 85 of the Act allows a state government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to extend application of the provisions of the Act to certain premises not covered by section 2(m). The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that many state governments have notified manufacturing units as factories under the Factories Act. Recalling that the Convention applies to all branches of economic activity, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the protection contained in this Convention is applied to workers in manufacturing units with fewer than ten workers (with the aid of power) or 20 workers (without the aid of power).

Article 3. Manual transport of a load likely to jeopardize the health and safety of the worker. The Committee previously noted that section 34 of the Factories Act provides that no person shall be employed in any factory to lift, carry or move any load so heavy as to cause them injury. Section 34(2) of the Act provides that state governments may make rules prescribing the maximum weights which may be lifted, carried or moved by adult men, adult women or young workers in any class or description of factories. In addition, the Model Rules under the Factories Act, issued as guidance for state governments, set out maximum weight limits for male and female adults, as well as young persons (Model Rule 64). The Committee requested information on whether any state governments had made rules prescribing the maximum permissible weight.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its report, that the State Factories Rules notified by various state governments prescribe the maximum weight to be handled by workers while working in factories. The Committee requests the Government to specify which state governments have adopted State Factories Rules that prescribe the maximum weights which may be lifted, as permitted under section 34(2) of the Factories Act. It also requests the Government to submit an extract of the relevant Rules of each state.

Article 7. Young workers. The Committee notes that the guidance contained in Model Rule 64 prescribes maximum weights for young persons between the ages of 15 and 18 years (male and female), and for young persons aged 14 and 15 years. The Committee also notes that the Government is in the process of developing legislation to amend the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the guidance contained in Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Maximum Weight Recommendation, 1967 (No. 128), which states that where the minimum age for assignment to manual transport of loads is less than 16 years, measures should be taken as speedily as possible to raise it to that level, and that the minimum age for assignment to regular manual transport of loads should be raised, with a view to attaining a minimum age of 18 years. The Committee invites the Government to continue to provide information on any measures taken concerning the assignment of persons under 18 to the regular manual transport of loads.

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide the information previously requested on the application of the Convention in practice and only indicates that the Factories Act and the State Factories Rules under that Act are enforced by the respective state governments. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, the number and nature of the contraventions reported and the number, nature and cause of accidents reported.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments concerning Article 1 of the Convention on consultations with representatives of employers and workers, and Article 14 on measures taken in cases where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is medically inadvisable.

General observation of 2015. The Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2015 under this Convention, and in particular to the request for information contained in paragraph 30 thereof.

Articles 6(2) and 7(2) of the Convention. Dose limits in occupational exposure and dose limits for persons between 16 and 18 years of age. The Committee notes the Order on Dose limits for exposures from ionizing radiation for workers and members of the public, 2011, submitted with the Government’s report. It notes that section 1.1 of the Order establishes, for occupationally exposed workers, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 150 mSv in a year. Section 1.2 establishes, for apprentices and trainees between 16 and 18 years of age, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 50 mSv in a year. With reference to paragraphs 11, 13, 32 and 34 of its 2015 general observation, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the most recent recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection that recommend, for radiation workers, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 20 mSv/year, averaged over defined periods of five years, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv per year, and for students between the ages of 16 and 18 who use sources of radiation in the course of their studies, an equivalent dose to the lens of the eye of 20 mSv/year. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to review the maximum permissible doses established, in light of current knowledge, including with respect to the lens of the eye.

Article 13. Medical surveillance and records of individual doses. The Committee notes that section 6.1.1.4 of the Order of 2011, sets out dose limits for occupational exposure for temporary workers that is lower than the limits established for occupational exposure. It also notes the information provided by the Government that in 2011 and 2012, two incidents took place at different nuclear power plants that resulted in a total of five temporary workers receiving radiation exposure in excess of the specified dose constraints. Following those incidents, the workers were medically examined and assigned work in the non-radioactive areas of the plant. With reference to paragraph 41 of its general observation of 2015, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to ensure the effective and comprehensive protection of temporary workers, including with respect to the keeping of a complete record of all doses received for such workers.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 1 of the Convention. Definitions. The Committee notes that the Dock Workers’ (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and Regulations, 1990 do not include definitions of the terms listed in this Article of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that definitions of “manual transport of loads”, “regular transport of loads” and “young worker”’ are included for dock work.

Article 2(2). All branches of economic activity. The Committee notes section 2(m)(i) and (ii) of the Factories Act, 1948, which limits application of the Act to manufacturing units with ten or more workers (with aid of power) or 20 or more workers (without aid of power). The Committee further notes that section 85 allows a State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to extend application of the provisions of this Act to certain premises not covered by section 2(m). The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that this Convention applies to manufacturing units of less than ten or 20 workers, depending on whether the process is carried out with or without the aid of power, and to indicate whether coverage of the Act has been extended by any State Government.

Article 3. Manual transport of a load likely to jeopardize the health and safety of the worker. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, and in particular the maximum weight limits for male and female adults and young persons, set out in the schedule to sub-rule 2 of Model Rule 64. The Government also states that section 34 of the Factories Act allows State Governments to make rules prescribing the maximum weights which may be lifted, carried or moved by adult men, adult women or young workers in factories. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to Paragraph 13 of the Maximum Weight Recommendation, 1967 (No. 128), which states that members determining maximum weight should take account of physiological characteristics, environmental conditions, the nature of the work to be done, and any other conditions which may influence the health and safety of the worker. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether any State Governments have made rules prescribing the maximum weight of a load that needs to be considered by the employer, when evaluating the risk to the health and safety of workers when engaging in the manual transport of a load. The Committee also asks the Government to provide further information on the health and safety assessment undertaken prior to determining the prescribed weight limits in Rule 64.

Article 7. Young workers. The Committee notes with interest that the Union Cabinet approved in August proposals for amending the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, to ban employment of children aged up to 14 years in any form of industry, and to define children aged 14–18 years as “adolescents” and prohibit their employment in mines, explosives industries, chemical and paint industries and other hazardous establishments. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Maximum Weight Recommendation, 1967 (No. 128), which states that where the minimum age for assignment to manual transport of loads is less than 16 years, measures should be taken as speedily as possible to raise it to that level, and that the minimum age for assignment to regular manual transport of loads should be raised, with a view to attaining a minimum age of 18 years. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the legislative measures taken to give further effect to the provisions of the Convention, and in particular in regard to the manual transport of loads by young workers.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, where such information exists, the number of workers covered by the legislation; the number and nature of the contraventions reported; and the number, nature and cause of accidents reported.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Legislation. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report, and in particular the amendment to section 2(cb) of the Factories Act, 1948 regarding the definition of a “hazardous process”. The Government further indicates that a new section 2(cc) to define “hazardous substance” has been proposed in relation to the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, and that amendments to Chapter IV-A of the Factories Act have been proposed to bring the provision relating to hazardous processes in line with this Convention. The Committee asks the Government to keep the Office informed of any legislative changes in this respect.

Article 4 of the Convention. National policy. The Committee notes the elements of the National Policy on Safety and the Environment concerned with the risk of major accidents, and in particular the aspects of the Policy’s Action Programme which includes measures to prevent catastrophes. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the specific measures that have been taken in line with this National Policy to prevent catastrophes; and to indicate what actions have been taken in industrial zones with high potential risks, and how these concern the protection of workers, the public and the environment.

Article 16. Off-site emergency preparedness. The Committee notes Rule 15 of The Major Accident Hazard Control Rules, 1997 and The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989, which prescribes the information to be given by the occupier to persons liable to be affected by a major accident. The Committee recalls that under Article 16, it is the competent authority that has the responsibility to ensure that information on safety measures is disseminated to members of the public liable to be affected by a major accident, and that such information is updated and re-disseminated at appropriate intervals; to warn as soon as possible in the case of a major accident; and where a major accident could have transboundary effects, that this information is provided to the States concerned. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the effect given to this Article.

Article 18. Inspection. Qualifications, training and skills. Possibility for employers and workers to accompany the inspectors. The Committee notes that the attached Rules are silent concerning the requirements of this Article. It further notes that section 8 of the Factories Act specifies that the State Government may appoint such persons as possessing the prescribed qualification to be inspectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to ensure that the competent authority has properly qualified and trained staff with the appropriate skills, and sufficient technical and professional support, to inspect, investigate, assess and advise on the matters dealt with in this Convention, and that representatives of employers and workers may accompany these inspectors, as provided for in Article 18.

Article 19. Right to suspend any operation. The Committee notes that the Government’s report is silent on this matter. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken to allow the competent authority to suspend any operation which poses an imminent threat of a major accident.

Articles 20 and 21. Rights and duties of workers and their representatives. The Committee notes that section 41G of the Factories Act deals with workers’ participation in safety management, including promotion of cooperation between workers and management in maintaining proper safety and health at work. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information detailing the legislative and practical measures giving effect to the specific requirements of Articles 20 and 21.

Article 22. Responsibility of exporting States. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government concerning section 18 of the MSIHC Rules, which provides for the import of hazardous chemicals. Recalling that Article 22 requires an exporting State to make any relevant information on hazardous substances, technologies or processes known to any importing State, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure full effect is given to Article 22 of the Convention, in law and in practice.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report concerning hazardous processes in the manufacturing and port sector. The Government indicates that there are 1,752 major accident hazard factories in the manufacturing sector in which 223 hazardous chemicals are stored or handled, and that 1,146 on-site emergency plans have been prepared for these factories. In 2010, the total number of hazardous factory inspections carried out under the Factories Act was 12,888. As for the port sector, the Government indicates that there are 13 major accident hazard installations in the 12 major ports of which ten are for storage and three for pipelines. During 2011–12, the inspectors of dock safety carried out 39 inspections of major hazardous installations. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the practical application of the Convention in the country.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the responses provided in the Government’s report and the attached details of the factories notified under section 85 of the Factories Act 1948 and the Schedule on benzene, across a number of states and union territories, which continues to give effect to Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard with particular reference to the listed states and union territories not yet notified under section 85 of the Factories Act 1948 and the Schedule on benzene, and to those states and union territories not listed.

Article 10(2) of the Convention. Provision of free medical examinations. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government indicating the states and union territories that provide free medical examinations. The Committee further notes the information that in the State of Rajasthan, a fee of 10 rupees per examination of each worker is charged from the occupier, and that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, measures only apply to factories which employ five or more workers. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on whether the costs indicated with regard to the State of Rajasthan are transferred to the workers concerned, and whether measures exist in the State of Uttar Pradesh in factories employing less than five workers.

Part IV of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee asks the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country, and to attach extracts from inspection reports and, where such statistics exist, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, the number and nature of the contraventions reported, and the number, nature and cause of accidents reported.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee welcomes the Government’s timely first report on the application of the Convention, and notes with interest the relevant legislation and regulations in place, including the Major Accident Hazard Control (MAHC) Rules, under the Factories Act 1948, and the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical (MSIHC) Rules 1989, amended in 2000, under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the relevant measures undertaken with regard to the Convention.

Article 4 of the Convention. National policy concerning the protection of workers, the public and the environment against the risk of major accidents. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government indicating that it has formulated and adopted a comprehensive National Policy on Occupational Safety, Health and the Environment at the Workplace (20 February, 2009), and that the National Policy of the Ministry of Environment and Forests for abatement of Pollution (1992) commits itself to preventing deterioration of environment due to pollution. The Government also indicates that mechanisms exist for consultation through tripartite bodies, such as the Indian Labour Conference, Committee on Conventions, Industrial Committees, etc. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the provisions of the national policy which are concerned with the risk of major accidents, and to indicate the preventive and protective measures for major hazard installations undertaken to implement this policy.

Articles 7 to 14. Responsibilities of employers. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which indicates that the MAHC Rules, the MSIHC Rules and the Model Rules, formulated under the Factories Act, cover these provisions of the Convention. The Committee notes that these regulations refer to the responsibilities of the ‘occupier’ of an industrial activity. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the specific provisions under the abovementioned rules, which give effect to each of the requirements under Articles 7 to 14; and to indicate the meaning of ‘occupier’ under the abovementioned Rules, in relation to the responsibilities required of an employer under the Convention.

Articles 15 to 19. Responsibilities of competent authorities. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which indicates that these aspects have been covered under the existing MAHC Rules and the MSIHC Rules. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the specific provisions under the abovementioned rules, which give effect to each of the requirements under Articles 15 to 19.

Articles 20 and 21. Rights and duties of workers and their representatives. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which indicates that the provisions of these Articles are substantively covered by the Factories Act, 1948. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the specific provisions under the abovementioned law, which give effect to each of the requirements under Articles 20 to 21, with particular reference to workers at a major hazard installation.

Article 22. Responsibility of exporting States. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided a response on the application of this provision of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the measures taken or envisaged, in law and in practice, to ensure that when, in an exporting member State, the use of hazardous substances, technologies or processes is prohibited as a potential source of a major accident, the information on this prohibition and the reasons for it shall be made available by the exporting member State to any importing country.

Part V of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the activities of the Central Labour Institute, including the division on Major Accident Hazards Control; and that the status of occupational safety and health in all manufacturing units is monitored through regular inspections, under the Factories Act, carried out by the inspector of factories appointed by the State Governments or Union Territory Administrations. The Committee also notes that the total number of workers covered by the Factories Act in the country is 12,141,881 (as per 2008 estimates). The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2012.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the information in the Government’s latest report, and the attached documentation, indicating the notification and directive issued under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 during the period between 2005 and 2010, and that notifications on dose limits based on the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations and on the radiation protection symbol have been prepared and are ready to be issued. The Committee also notes the response provided by the Government, and the relevant sections of the 2005 Atomic Energy Regulation Board (AERB) Safety manual on radiation protection for nuclear facilities (Safety Manual 2005) attached, which indicate the exposure levels requiring prompt investigation and give further effect to Articles 3(1) and 6(2) of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on relevant measures undertaken with regard to the Convention and to provide copies of any notifications or directives issued under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 concerning application of the Convention.

Article 1 of the Convention. Consultation with representatives of employers and workers. The Committee notes the Government’s response indicating that during the formulation of the recent notification and directive, consultation was undertaken with relevant stakeholders, including industry representatives. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of measures taken to consult with the concerned representatives of employers and workers on all aspects related to the application of the Convention, including the development and review of relevant legislation and ongoing development of notifications under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004.

Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government indicating that under the Safety Manual 2005, cases of exposure exceeding the dose of 20 mSv in a year should be investigated by an exposure investigation committee, which should include as a member the medical officer of the facility. The Government indicates that one of the functions of this committee is to suggest further action in respect of work to be allocated to the person who has been advised to be removed from radioactive areas as a result of exposure. The Committee further notes the information that AERB team members verify that over-exposed persons who are removed from radioactive work are suitably deployed in a non-radioactive area for a specified period. The Government indicates that no cases concerning loss of wages as a result of alternative employment has been brought to the attention of the AERB. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on the specified time period that applies for workers removed from radioactive work due to over-exposure; and to indicate whether other means for maintaining income are offered in cases where alternative employment does not cover the entire duration in which workers are medically advised not to continue work involving exposure.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report regarding the application of the Convention through the relevant administrative procedures in place. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application of this Convention in practice, with particular reference to any investigations carried out under part 11 of the 2005 Safety Manual, and to specify any situations where workers have been removed from radioactive work and provided with alternative employment. The Committee also asks the Government to provide general information on the number of workers covered by the Convention and the number and nature of infringements reported by the labour inspectorate.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee takes note of the Government’s report including an extract of Schedule XX to Rule 114 of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. Notification of applicability. With reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes that the Government has indicated that efforts are being taken to ensure that state governments issue the notifications required under section 85, subsection 1 of the Factories Act, 1948, to make the Act applicable to all premises where workers may be exposed to benzene or substances containing benzene. The Committee notes with interest the information that such notifications have been issued in the states of Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. The Committee notes however that no such notification has yet been issued in the State of Goa, and that the Government has furnished state-wise details in this regard only in respect of 20 states in the country. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether such notifications have been issued by the governments of states other than those referred to in the Government’s report where there are units manufacturing, handling or using benzene or substances containing benzene and to also clarify whether there are any such units in the State of Goa.

3. Article 10, paragraph 2. Provision of free medical examinations. With further reference to its previous direct request, the Committee notes with interest the information provided that the government of Maharashtra as well as the state governments of Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and West Bengal have adopted the schedule on benzene providing for medical examinations at the expense of the employer which substitutes the rules or orders required under section 87(c) of the Factories Act, 1948. The Committee further notes the confirmation that section 114 of the Factories Act, 1948, requires the provision free of charge of any arrangement or facility required to be provided by the employer under the provisions of the Act. Noting that only some states in India appear to have adopted the schedule on benzene providing for medical examinations at the expense of the employer and that the State of Chattisgarh has not adopted the schedule, the Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken to ensure that the required schedule is adopted in the State of Chattisgarh and that workers at a nationwide level employed in work processes involving exposure to benzene or products containing benzene are entitled to pre-employment and periodic medical examinations, at the expense of the employer.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes the information and appended documentation in the Government’s report including the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, the Atomic Energy Regulation Board (AERB) safety manual on radiation protection for nuclear facilities and the Annual Report of the AERB for the period 2003-04. The Committee also notes the information that notifications under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, are being developed and requests the Government to transmit copies thereof once they have been issued.

2. The Committee notes with interest the clarifications and additional information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments concerning the protection of pregnant women engaged in radiation work, protection against accidents and during emergency situations, and the enforcement of legislation on radiation protection and requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments, in law and in practice, in these areas.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. Consultation with representatives of employers and workers. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Committee notes the indication of the Government that the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, were prepared by specialists in radiological safety and other experts of nuclear and radiation facilities, and that all aspects related to safety of workers and the public were duly considered. It regrets, however, to note that the Government indicates that these rules were adopted without consultation with representatives of employers and workers. While noting the explanation of the Government that it was found impracticable to refer the draft rules to the large number of representative bodies of employers and workers, the Committee wishes to emphasize that Article 1 of the Convention requires the competent authority to consult with representatives of employers and workers while applying the provisions of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it drew the attention of the Government to this obligation in its comments made in 1987 and that in response, the Government indicated in 1990 that the Department of Atomic Energy would take into consideration the requirements of Article 1 while framing rules. Furthermore, in its report submitted in 2000, the Government indicated that the draft of the Radiation Protection Rules, 2004, would be sent to the representatives of all the concerned employers’ and workers’ organizations for their comments. Under these circumstances, in the light of the importance of the consultation required under Article 1, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the competent authority will take appropriate measures in the future to consult with the concerned representatives of employers and workers on all aspects related to the application of the Convention, including the development and reviews of relevant legislation such as the ongoing development of notifications under the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

4. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2. Effective protection of workers against ionizing radiation. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments, the Government clarifies that the AERB Safety Directive No. 7-1999, on radiation exposure adopted in 1999 in accordance with the recommendations of the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) 60 (1990), prescribe a maximum permissible dose limit of 30 mSv for workers involved in radiation activities, subject to a cumulative dose over a defined block of five years not exceeding 100 mSv. It also notes, with interest, the Government’s further explanation that an exposure of 10 mSv at any time in the year triggers a review of the work practice of the exposed worker and the taking of remedial measures, as appropriate, to ensure that the annual dose limit is not exceeded, and that such reviews have actually helped in instituting appropriate remedial measures. Noting that the AERB Directives do not seem to regulate such a review, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the specific provision of national legislation or the specific directive that requires a review of work practice when the dose of a worker exceeds 10 mSv and to keep the Committee informed of the application of this review process.

5. Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes the indications of the Government in response to its previous comments that all instances where workers are exposed to ionizing radiation in excess of the prescribed limits are reviewed by specialist committees and appropriate directives are issued to the licensee. The directives would include a prescribed discontinuation of radiation work by the worker and the engagement of the worker in alternative work for a specified period. The Government also indicates that such provision of alternative work for a specified period has never been a problem for the licensee and that no case of loss of wages in the case of such alternative employment has been brought to the notice of the AERB. The Committee notes that there is thus a possibility for workers who have been subjected to excessive exposure to secure alternative employment for a specific period. The Committee notes however that the information furnished by the Government does not appear to cover all cases where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable nor does it seem to apply generally as it is limited to specific time periods. In this context, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to paragraph 32 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is indicated that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable. In the light of the above indication, the Committee requests the Government to consider taking appropriate measures to ensure that no worker shall be employed or shall continue to be employed in work by reason of which the worker could be the subject of exposure to ionizing radiation contrary to medical advice and that for such workers, every effort is made to provide them with suitable alternative employment or to offer them other means to maintain their income and requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the following points.

1. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the Draft Radiation Protection Rules will be sent to the representatives of the employers and workers for their comments once the revision is finished, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to confirm the arrangements adopted to ensure that consultations with representatives of employers and workers are held on the occasion of the revision of the abovementioned Rules.

2. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2. With regard to the protection of pregnant women directly engaged in radiation work, the Government indicates that the dose limit of 2 mSv for pregnant women directly engaged in radiation work is applied to the surface of the women’s abdomen for the remainder of the pregnancy in order to ensure that a level of protection equal to that of the public is granted to the foetus. In this respect, the Committee calls the Government’s attention to paragraph 13 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is explained that, according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the methods of protection at work for women who may be pregnant should provide a standard of protection for any unborn child broadly comparable with that provided for members of the general public which are not to be exposed to more than 1 mSv per year. Once the pregnancy has been declared, the ICRP considers that the unborn child should be protected by applying a supplementary equivalent dose limit to the surface of the women’s abdomen (lower trunk) of 2 mSv for the remainder of the pregnancy and by limiting intakes of radionuclides to about one-tenth of the annual limit on intake. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to optimize the standard of protection for any foetus, by taking into consideration the elements provided with the 1990 ICRP Recommendations to which the Committee’s 1992 general observation under the Convention refers. As to the practice, the Government specifies that about 5 per cent of the female radiation workers receive annual doses in excess of 2 mSv. However, the radiological safety officer in each institution is empowered to take decisions in every single case on the grounds of the assessment of the type of work performed and the history of doses of radiation received, in order to adjust the work of pregnant workers. Moreover, by virtue of section 26 of the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971, the employers are expected to make every reasonable effort to provide alternative employment opportunities to those radiation workers whose work has to be regulated because of radiation exposure. In this context, the Government adds that no worker ever has declared to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) a loss of wages because he or she has been removed from work on grounds of excessive radiation exposure. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether in these circumstances the employer is legally obliged to provide alternative employment that, however, would not lead to a loss of wages, since both employment security and income protection for women concerned represent essential prerequisites to ensure an effective protection of this particularly vulnerable group of workers.

3. Protection against accidents and during emergency situations. The Committee notes with interest that, while the Radiation Protection Rules are being revised, the AERB has issued a safety manual on radiation protection for nuclear facilities offering guidance on emergency exposure of occupational workers. The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the above manual. It hopes that the new Radiation Protection Rules will be adopted soon and that they will reflect, inter alia, the indications given in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation, in which it is stressed that immediate and urgent remedial work must be strictly limited to what is required to meet an acute danger to life and health.

4. Alternative employment. The Committee notes that the regulatory agency is empowered to prohibit the continuation of work involving exposure to ionizing radiations to those workers who have accumulated exposure doses beyond the dose limits fixed, and that the prohibition is effective during the period of investigation of the circumstances under which the exposure took place. In these cases, however, no worker has refused alternative employment opportunities. The Committee invites the Government to report on the practical experiences gained in relation to the provision of alternative employment opportunities to workers who because of overexposure were not allowed to continue radiation work.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information provided with the Government’s report. Further to its previous observation, it draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Articles 3, paragraph 1 and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the revision of the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 is still in progress, but that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), being the responsible body for the revision of the above Rules, has implemented in the intervening time the latest Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) concerning permissible levels of exposure to ionizing radiations by means of safety directives. With regard to the dose limits prescribed, the Government indicates that the AERB lowered the annual permissible dose limit of 30 mSv to 10 mSv per year as from 1 January 1999. The Committee notes with interest the new annual dose limit for workers directly engaged in radiation work, since this dose limit is in line with the annual dose limit of 20 mSv prescribed by the ICRP in its 1990 Recommendations to which the Committee refers in its 1992 general observation under the Convention. It accordingly hopes that the dose limit will be maintained in the revised Radiation Protection Rules. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that all cases of exposure above 20 mSv per year were reviewed by an Apex Committee of Specialists. The Committee notes this information with interest and requests the Government to explain the influence of the above described review of exposure on further exposure of workers to ionizing radiations. It also requests the Government to supply a copy of the Safety Directives currently in force. Finally, while hoping that the new Radiation Protection Rules will be adopted in the near future, the Committee asks the Government to transmit a copy as soon as they are adopted.

2. With reference to the comments of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) complaining about the lack of effective enforcement of the legislation on radiation protection by the AERB, owing to organizational weakness, the Government indicates that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s Safety Directives are effectively enforced in various radiation installations and that the AERB issued in November 1996 a manual on radiation protection for nuclear facilities which addresses, inter alia, the regulatory requirements with respect to the employment of temporary workers, as well as the issue of appropriate medical examinations of workers in nuclear installations. The Government further states that all aspects of the enforcement of radiation protection are constantly reviewed by the AERB through a multi-tier process and that compliance with the provisions of the Radiological Safety Directives is monitored by an independent health physics unit. The records on doses received by workers are maintained by nuclear facilities and are being checked during regular inspections. In this context, the Government says that compliance with regulatory requirements by radiation installations has been satisfactory. The Committee, taking note of the information, requests the Government to supply, with its next report, extracts from official reports, including for example inspection reports, in order to enable the Committee to appreciate the manner in which the radiation protection legislation is enforced in practice by the AERB. The Government is also requested to transmit a copy of the manual on radiation protection issued by the AERB in November 1996.

The Committee is raising certain questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the provision of section 85, subsection 1, of the Factories Act, 1948, according to which the state government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare all or some provisions of this Act applicable to premises which, pursuant to section 2(m), do not fall under its scope of application. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government's indication to the effect that all state governments are being requested to issue the notification required under section 85, subsection 1, of the Factories Act, 1948, in order to make this Act applicable to all units manufacturing, handling or using benzene or substances containing benzene, irrespective of the number of persons employed. The Committee accordingly would request the Government to explain the manner in which state governments are being requested to declare the Factories Act, 1948, applicable to all premises, and to indicate whether some state governments have already issued this declaration.

2. Article 10, paragraph 2. The Committee notes section 87(c) of the Factories Act, 1948, concerning dangerous operations. Pursuant to this provision, the state government may order or make rules applicable to any factory providing for periodical medical examinations for persons employed or seeking to be employed. These medical examinations have to be paid by the occupier of the factory who is, pursuant to section 2(n) of this Act, the person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. To the understanding of the Committee, the Maharashtra State and some other state governments have notified the Schedule on Benzene providing for medical examinations at the expense of the occupier which apparently substitute the rules or orders required under section 87(c) of the Factories Act, 1948. The Committee would ask the Government to indicate the state governments which also have issued this notification in order to guarantee that medical examinations do not involve the workers in any expense, in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention. It further requests the Government to transmit a copy of the Schedule on Benzene notified by the Maharashtra State. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to explain whether section 114 of the Factories Act, 1948, also refers to medical examinations.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Referring also to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply further information on the following points.

1. The Committee notes the Government's assurance in its 1994 report that the draft of the new Radiation Protection Rules will be submitted to the representatives of employers and workers, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. In a comment attached to the Government's report of 1994, the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) indicates that consultations of workers' representatives with regard to the enforcement of the legislation on radiation protection needed to be improved. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the arrangements made to ensure consultations of representatives of employers and workers in revising the Radiation Protection Rules, and to supply any comments on the point raised by AITUC.

2. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2. With regard to the protection of pregnant women directly engaged in radiation work, the Committee notes that the Government stresses the importance to inform female workers that they should declare their pregnancy to the employer without delay. The Government also states that their status of work is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and that the approach followed is to ensure that the foetus is granted a level of protection equal to that of a member of the public. Recalling that employment security and income protection for the women concerned are prerequisites of effective protection, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in which manner it is ensured that the standard of protection for any foetus is to be broadly comparable with that provided for members of the public; and to supply information on the equivalent dose limit to the surface of the women's abdomen during the remainder of the pregnancy and on measures taken to provide them with alternative employment that would reduce their exposure to the minimum.

3. Protection against accidents and during emergency situations. The Committee notes the Government's reply to its direct request. It notes with interest that the production of a radiographic device which was found to be unsafe was stopped. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to supply information on the review of authorizations granted for practices or equipment found unsafe.

As the Government indicates that provisions concerning the protection of workers in emergency situations will be revised and included in the new Radiation Protection Rules, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c) of its 1992 general observation, in which it stresses that immediate and urgent remedial work must be strictly limited to what is required to meet an acute danger to life and health. The Committee would request the Government to supply information on the conditions in which exceptional exposure of workers is permitted and the measures taken or envisaged to optimize the protection during accidents and emergency situations, in particular as regards the design and protective features of the workplace and the provision of planned emergency procedures.

4. Alternative employment. The Committee notes the Government's indication that, under paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Radiation Rules, 1971, if a radiation worker has to discontinue radiation work under orders of the competent authority because of over-exposure, the employer shall make every reasonable effort to provide such worker with alternative work not involving exposure to radiation. The Committee further notes that the Government indicates that the possibility to improve these provisions would be examined within the framework of the revision of the Radiation Protection Rules. As the Government also indicates that these Rules will be revised in the light of the experience gained from its implementation, the Committee would request the Government to indicate whether there have been instances where the competent authority prohibited a radiation worker to continue work involving radiation, and whether such worker(s) were given alternative employment.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report under the Convention. With reference to its previous comment, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to the following points.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the Government's report, at present three more states have initiated action concerning the adoption of the "Model Schedule XXI on Benzene" of the Model Rules under the Factories Act, 1948, and that the remaining states which have not adopted the Model Schedule do not have factories using or manufacturing benzene. The Committee would note that some of the provisions of the Convention are applied by the Factories Act of 1948 and its Second Schedule, whose scope is, however, limited by the definition of factory under section 2(m) which does not include establishments that do not employ more than ten or, without the aid of power, 20 workers, and establishments which are not engaged in manufacturing processes; and that, within the same limited scope of application, further provisions of the Convention are applied by the Model Schedule XXI on Benzene of the Model Rules under the Factories Act of 1948, whose scope is further limited to states and union territories having adopted this Model Schedule.

The Committee recalls that the Convention applies to all activities involving exposure of workers to benzene or products containing benzene, and should include in the scope of its application premises or establishments which may not be considered as a "factory" under the Factories Act of 1948. It accordingly requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures that have been taken or proposed to give effect to the provisions of the Convention in all activities involving exposure of workers to benzene or products containing benzene, regardless of the size of the establishment or the nature of the activity.

2. Article 10, paragraph 2. Pursuant to section 114 of the Factories Act, no fee or charge shall be realized from any worker in respect of any arrangements or facilities to be provided for equipments or appliances to be supplied by the occupier under the provisions of the Factories Act. The Committee recalls that Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention calls for medical examinations of workers who are employed in work processes involving exposure to benzene, or to products containing benzene, which shall not involve the workers in any expense. The Committee would therefore request the Government to indicate the measures that would ensure that pre-employment and annual medical examination of workers will not involve the workers in any expense.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication, in its reports of 1994 and 1996, that the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971, are being revised by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and will reflect the principles established by the International Safety Standards of 1994 which are based on the recommendations adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) of 1990. The Committee further notes with interest that the Government indicates that, in the meantime, new dose limits for occupational exposure, taking into account the IRCP Recommendations and the international standards, have been set by AERB in Safety Directives that have been supplied to all employers. As the Government states that these limits are fixed at 100 mSv for five years from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1998, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, and how, these limits will be maintained after this date. It also requests the Government to supply a copy of the Safety Directives adopted by the AERB and the new Radiation Protection Rules as soon as they are adopted.

2. The Committee also notes that, in a comment attached to the Government's report of 1994, the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) underlines the lack of effective enforcement of the legislation on Radiation Protection by the AERB, due to organizational weaknesses. The AITUC also indicates that improvement is needed to ensure effective protection of temporary workers against ionizing radiation; to minimize occupational exposure (work planning and execution), and to conduct proper medical examination for early detection of occupational diseases. The Committee requests the Government to communicate any comments that it considers appropriate on the points raised by the AITUC, in the light of Article 3, paragraph 1, Article 12 and Article 15 of the Convention.

3. The Committee is raising certain questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government in its latest report under this Convention. It requests the Government to supply additional information on the following points.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government that the provisions of the Convention are applied by the "Model Schedule XXI on Benzene" of the Model Rules under the Factories Act of 1948. It further notes that the Model Schedule applies to factories or parts thereof in which benzene or substances containing benzene are manufactured; and that the Model Schedule was circulated to all states/union territory governments for adoption in their respective state rules. It notes that 19 states/union territory governments, including major industrial states, have already adopted the Model Schedule, while action has been initiated by four more states. The remaining states, according to the Government's report, do not have factories using or manufacturing benzene.

The Committee would note that some of the provisions of the Convention are applied by the Factories Act of 1948 and its Second Schedule, whose scope is however limited by the definition of factory under section 2(m) which does not include establishments that do not employ more than ten or, without the aid of power, 20 workers, and establishments which are not engaged in manufacturing processes; and that within the same limited scope of application, further provisions of the Convention are applied by the Model Schedule XXI on Benzene of the Model Rules under the Factories Act of 1948, whose scope is further limited to states and union territories having adopted this Model Schedule.

The Committee recalls that the Convention applies to all activities involving exposure of workers to benzene or products containing benzene, and should include in the scope of its application premises or establishments which may not be considered as a "factory" under the Factories Act of 1948. It accordingly requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures that have been taken or proposed to give effect to the provisions of the Convention in all activities involving exposure of workers to benzene or products containing benzene, regardless of the size of the establishment or the nature of the activity undertaken. The Government is likewise requested to continue supplying information on the extent of adoption of the Model Schedule XXI by the various states and union territory governments in India.

2. Article 10, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that no provision exists in the Model Schedule which would specifically provide that medical examinations shall not involve the workers any expense. The Committee would, therefore, request the Government to indicate the measures and the relevant legal provisions, if any, that would ensure that pre-employment and annual medical examination of workers will not involve the workers any expense.

3. Article 14. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the respective state/union territory governments are responsible for the enforcement of the Factories Act and the rules framed thereunder, including the Model Schedule XXI. It would request the Government to provide further details on measures to ensure that inspectors inspecting factories covered by the Model Schedule are competently trained or qualified to ensure that appropriate inspection services are provided for the purpose of supervising the application of the Convention, particularly in respect of Article 6, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Convention.

Finally, the Committee would request the Government to supply in its next report information concerning the practical application of the Convention in the country. The attention of the Government is referred in particular to points III and IV of the report form for this Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. In earlier comments, the Committee had noted a communication from the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) to the effect that the workers' organisations had not been consulted before the Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1984, were adopted. The Committee had recalled that under Article 1 of the Convention, in applying the provisions of the Convention, the competent authority shall consult with representatives of employers and workers.

The Committee notes with interest the Government's indication in its latest report that the Department of Atomic Energy has now assured that it would keep the requirements of Article 1 of the Convention in view while framing rules. The Government, however, adds that, since the nuclear energy establishments are owned by the Government in India, the stipulation regarding consultation with employers is ipso facto complied with. In this regard, the Committee must point out that, under Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, this Convention applies to all activities involving exposure of workers to ionising radiations in the course of their work, and not only to nuclear estalishments. Even where implementing laws and regulations concern a single government-owned industry, wider consultation may be called for to ensure consistency of approach to the protection of workers against ionising radiation. Moreover, the Government's function as a public authority implementing the Convention through the adoption of rules under Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention differs from its role as an entrepreneur and employer called upon to abide by those regulations. This distinction needs to be clearly maintained when it comes to representing on the one side, the public interest, and on the other, employers' concerns in adoption of laws and regulations under the Convention. The Committee accordingly hopes that, in framing rules and other instruments giving effect to the Convention, representatives of both employers and workers will be duly consulted, in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention, and that the Government will report from case to case on the arrangements made for this purpose.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply to its General Observation of 1987 concerning measures following abnormal situations. Referring to Article 13 of the Convention, the Government indicates that the current practice requires that, following an abnormal situation, the employer should send workers likely to have been exposed to radiation for prescribed medical examinations and attention. Also, the employer should forward a detailed report of the incident along with the personal monitoring badges of persons likely to have been exposed to radiation in excess of the limits in the incident, to the Division of Radiological Protection, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, for urgent processing and dose evaluation. If it is suspected that the persons may have received radiation doses in excess of the limits, the concerned individuals are required to be sent to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, for chromosomal observation tests. In practice, if the personal monitoring badge reveals that a worker has received a dose in excess of 1,000 mR in one month, an investigation is initiated by the Division of Radiological Protection of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay. The Government further states that, if the personal monitoring badge reveals that a worker has received a dose in excess of 2,000 mR in one month, the worker is laid off, an investigation of the excessive exposure is initiated by the Division of Radiological Protection (BARC), and any recommendations are implemented by the employer. In this regard, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to its General Observation under this Convention, in particular, paragraphs 16 to 34 concerning the limitation of occupational exposure during and after an emergency, and the need to find alternative employment for workers faced with the dilemma that saving their health may mean losing their employment.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the steps taken or considered in relation to the matters raised in this regard in paragraph 35(c) and (d) of the General Observation, in particular as regards the review of authorisations granted for practices or equipment of a type found unsafe, the optimisations of protection, the strict definition of emergency tasks for which normal dose limits may be exceeded, and the provision of alternative employment opportunities to victims of excessive exposure.

3. Referring more generally to its General Observation under this Convention, the Committee notes that revised exposure limits have been established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection on the basis of new physiological findings in its 1990 recommendations (Publication No. 60). The Committee would recall that, under Article 3, paragraph 1, and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention, all appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionising radiations and to review maximum permissible doses of ionising radiations in the light of current knowledge. The Government is requested to indicate the steps taken or being considered in relation to the matters raised in paragraph 35(a) and (b) of the conclusions to the General Observation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1987, published 74th ILC session (1987)

1. Further to its observation of 1985 on the adoption of the Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1984, the Committee notes a communication from the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) to the effect that the workers' organisations had not been consulted before the said Rules were adopted and had not been furnished with a copy of those Rules. In its comments on the matters raised by the CITU the Government states that the text of the Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1984, was published in the Gazette of India under 6SR No. 782 dated 21 July 1984 and hence is a public document: however a copy has now been sent to the CITU. The Government further states that representatives of employers and workers were not consulted before the Rules were adopted because the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 under which the Rules were adopted does not provide for any such consultation. The Committee recalls that under Article 1 of the Convention, in applying the provisions of the Convention, the competent authority shall consult with representatives of employers and workers. The Committee hopes that the Government will ensure that in the future, representatives of employers and workers are duly consulted on the measures taken to apply the Convention as required by Article 1.

2. The Committee also notes that the communication received from the CITU indicated that the Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1984 do not fix exposure limits for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention. The Rules, in fact, do not fix permissible exposure limits for any workers, whether they are directly or indirectly engaged in radiation work. In this regard, the Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government that in pursuance of section 23 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the exposure level for workers who are not occupational radiation workers is fixed at 5 mSv/year, which is in accordance with the current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection and thus in compliance with Article 8 of the Convention.

3. Further, the Committee notes the information in the CITU's communication and in the Government's report concerning the medical examination of seafarers who may have been subject to radiation exposure as a result of their passage through the Black Sea during the fall-out from Chernobyl. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the affected seafarers were given appropriate medical examinations and that an agreement has been reached between the Shipping Corporation of India, Ltd., and the Forward Seamen's Union of India, under which the SCI undertakes responsibility for the medical treatment of the concerned crew, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention.