Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 1992, publiée 79ème session CIT (1992)

Convention (n° 115) sur la protection contre les radiations, 1960 - Inde (Ratification: 1975)

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.