Gurugram collapse: SC seeks Centre’s reply on gaps in safety code for workers

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Centre on a petition alleging lack of a safety code for construction workers under the new Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 in the light of a recent wall collapse in Gurugram that killed seven workers and injured four.(Getty Images/iStockphoto)A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, “The safety of construction workers must be made a condition in the licence itself that labour safety code will be followed.” It agreed to examine the issue raised by the petition filed by the National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour.Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner told the court that the immediate occasion for filing the petition was the collapse of a retaining wall during an excavation work carried out at the Signature Global City of Colours project at Sidhrawali, Gurugram in March .The excavation was being carried out for a sewage treatment plant; the accident that claimed seven lives.Terming the incident an eye-opener, Bhushan said that the recent episode exposes a gap in legislation which is depriving labourers of safety guarantees and compensation benefits. He pointed out that the new Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 which came into operation on May 7 casts an obligation on the Centre to frame rules with regard to building or other construction work. However, till date, the rules cater to cleanliness, ventilation and dust and not the vital aspect of labourer safety.The petition said that prior to the 2026 Rules, construction safety was governed by the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 which has now been replaced by the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 under which the new rules were formulated.The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said, “We are issuing notice. Give us a chart where you state the gaps under the new rules as compared to the prior code.” The court was also of the view that builders should create a corpus for welfare of construction workers.Bhushan said that this would require a Central rule. He added that there is no remedy under the present code specifying a forum or tribunal where construction workers or their dependants can compensation claims. The court added: “The Director of Town Country and Planning is the authority which issues licences to builders. There is a separate statute governing issue of these licences. If statute creates an obligation, it becomes easy to implement. The government can notify either labour courts or industrial courts to deal with compensation claims.”The petition said that the earlier Code had provisions specifically dealing with safety and health of construction workers during excavation, tunnelling or other works. It also made the relevant Indian Standards, the National Building Code and the International Labour Organisation code of practice on construction safety binding on employers.Section 18(1) of the new code requires the Central Government to declare, by notification, standards on occupational safety and health for workplaces relating to building and other construction work. The petition claimed that the same remains unfulfilled.Bhushan said that the March incident showed that there is no rule on excavation, shoring, sloping, placement of excavated material, inspection before entry, scaffolding, formwork, or demolition.The petition also sought a complete inquiry into the March collapse as well as determination and payment of compensation and statutory dues to the deceased and injured workers and their families. It also sought establishment of a national record of construction fatalities and their causes. The petition has made the Haryana government, the relevant state departments and police authorities as parties. The court order requires a response to be filed by them.