The Gujarat High Court has issued a direction to key authorities — including the State Government, the Union Government, and the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) — to respond to a Public Interest Litigation filed by a recognised trade union representing industrial workers in Kutch. The petitioners seek an order extending the territorial coverage of the ESI Act to encompass the entire Kutch district, so that workers engaged in factories, industrial units, port-based operations, and other hazardous sectors can access medical and social-security benefits under the Act. The Court’s order requires each respondent to file separate affidavits providing a detailed, para-wise reply. This includes a record of efforts — if any — made to expand the scope of the ESI Act in Gujarat generally, and specifically to the district of Kutch.
In their petition, the trade union contended that over recent years, a large number of manufacturing and industrial operations have been established in Kutch, across multiple sectors such as minerals, port-based activities, marine, chemical engineering, infrastructure projects, ceramics, textiles, edible oil refineries, power plants, desalination plants, captive jetties, and others. The union pointed out that the district is home to several major ports, substantial cargo movement, timber-conversion zones, mineral-processing factories, and salt production units. It is noted that approximately 60% of the salt produced in the State is contributed by Kutch, with annual production around 2.5 lakh tonnes, much of which is exported. The petition highlighted that salt workers and those in mining, mineral processing or chemical industries face serious occupational hazards — including exposure to chemical fires, heat stress, skin and eye infections, respiratory ailments, and other risk factors due to harsh working conditions, heavy industrial operations, and hazardous materials handling.
The petitioners argued that given the hazardous nature of work and presence of large-scale industrial labour, industrial workers in Kutch are entitled to the protections and benefits envisaged under the ESI Act. They pointed out that though the ESI scheme was introduced in Gujarat decades ago — first implemented in a few districts including the industrial cluster around Ahmedabad — the scheme’s extension across the State has been partial and uneven. According to the petition, only a few districts have been “fully notified” for implementation of ESI; some others are “partially notified,” while several — including Kutch — remain outside the purview altogether.
Under the ESI Act, as the petitioners submitted, the Central Government has the power to notify areas where the Act will apply; the State Government, in turn, can designate establishments within those notified areas. The petitioners contended that for Kutch, no survey has been undertaken by ESIC’s regional office to assess the industrial establishments or workers for potential coverage. The absence of such survey and lack of formal notification has left thousands of industrial workers without access to social security benefits, medical care, and other protections that ESI provides.
In light of these arguments, the petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to formally notify the territorial boundaries of Kutch district under the ESI Act, and to register all eligible factories and establishments. The relief sought includes immediate inclusion of workers under ESI scheme so they may access medical benefits, insurance coverage, occupational disease protection, and other welfare benefits, especially given the hazardous nature of their work.
During the hearing, the Court acknowledged the gravity of the concerns raised by the petitioners. It ordered that the authorities place on record details of any steps taken so far to widen the ESI Act’s coverage in Gujarat, and in particular whether any administrative or statutory action has been initiated regarding Kutch district. The bench directed that the respondents file their affidavits by the next date, providing a full and specific response to each of the petitioners’ claims and the potential for extending coverage. The Court thus set the matter down for further consideration at a future date.
The order underscores that the Court recognises the need for social-security benefits for industrial workers in regions like Kutch, where rapid industrialisation — including hazardous industries — coexists with absence of ESI coverage. By seeking detailed responses from the State and ESIC, the High Court has opened the door for potential expansion of statutory protections to a large workforce that currently remains outside the scope of the ESI regime.
At the time of admission, the case is listed for further hearing. The Court’s intervention reflects an active judicial role in ensuring that labour rights and social welfare laws adapt to shifting industrial landscapes and extend protections to vulnerable worker populations.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.