Case Law On Factory Fire And Rana Plaza Type Prosecutions
🏭 1. Rana Plaza Collapse (Bangladesh, 2013)
Case: State v. Sohel Rana & Others
Court: Dhaka District and Sessions Judge’s Court (Bangladesh)
Facts:
On April 24, 2013, the Rana Plaza building in Savar, Dhaka, collapsed, killing over 1,100 garment workers and injuring more than 2,500.
The building housed five garment factories. Despite visible cracks the day before, factory owners forced workers to return.
Sohel Rana, the building owner, had illegally added extra floors beyond approved permits.
Legal Issues:
Violation of Building Code and Labor Law provisions.
Criminal charges under Bangladesh Penal Code, Sections 304, 304A, 326, 427, and 109 — culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing death by negligence, and abetment.
Corruption charges under Anti-Corruption Commission Act, as building permits were obtained illegally.
Judgment/Status:
Trials began in 2016; in 2022, Sohel Rana and others were convicted in related corruption cases.
The homicide trial continues, but the court established key principles of employer liability and corporate manslaughter, recognizing that forcing workers into unsafe conditions constitutes criminal negligence.
Legal Principle:
Employers and owners who knowingly endanger workers through willful disregard for safety codes can be prosecuted for culpable homicide, not merely negligence.
🔥 2. Tazreen Fashions Fire (Bangladesh, 2012)
Case: State v. Delwar Hossain & Mahmuda Akter
Court: Dhaka District Court
Facts:
On November 24, 2012, a fire at the Tazreen Fashions factory in Dhaka killed at least 117 workers.
Exits were locked, and the factory lacked emergency exits, sprinklers, or fire alarms.
Legal Issues:
Charged under Sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code for culpable homicide and negligent act causing death.
Allegations included violation of Labor Law (2006), which requires emergency exits and fire safety training.
Judgment/Status:
Charges accepted in 2015; case still proceeding.
However, the court made crucial observations: that corporate officers and owners bear personal liability for failure to ensure safe workplaces, not just the company.
Legal Principle:
Failure to maintain adequate fire safety in a factory, when such failure is foreseeable and preventable, constitutes criminal negligence and can rise to the level of culpable homicide.
⚙️ 3. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (Bhopal Gas Disaster, 1989)
Citation: AIR 1990 SC 273 (India, Supreme Court)
Facts:
The Bhopal Gas Leak (1984) released toxic methyl isocyanate gas from Union Carbide’s plant, killing over 3,000 immediately and injuring hundreds of thousands.
Civil and criminal actions were filed in India and the US.
Legal Issues:
Corporate and transnational liability for industrial accidents.
The doctrine of absolute liability for hazardous industries established.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court approved a $470 million settlement in 1989.
Later, in Union Carbide v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996), criminal charges were reinstated against UCC and its executives, including CEO Warren Anderson.
Legal Principle:
Hazardous industries owe an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure no harm results from their operations.
Corporate entities can be criminally liable for deaths caused by failure to maintain safety standards.
🏭 4. Ali Enterprises Factory Fire (Karachi, Pakistan, 2012)
Case: State v. Abdul Aziz, Arshad Bhaila & Others
Court: Anti-Terrorism Court (Karachi)
Facts:
Fire in a garment factory in Baldia Town, Karachi killed over 260 workers.
Exits were locked; building lacked fire safety measures.
Later, investigations revealed it was arson linked to extortion, not an accident.
Legal Issues:
Initially treated as industrial negligence, later as terrorism under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
Factory owners charged with failure to maintain safety and illegally locking exits.
Judgment:
In 2020, two MQM political operatives were sentenced to death for arson.
Owners were acquitted of direct arson but faced civil liability for safety negligence.
Legal Principle:
Even where deliberate acts cause industrial deaths, factory owners remain liable for omitting to maintain safety and evacuation mechanisms, showing that negligence liability coexists with intentional acts.
🔥 5. Kamala Mills Fire (Mumbai, India, 2017)
Case: State of Maharashtra v. Rakeen Shroff & Others
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts:
A fire at restaurants in the Kamala Mills compound killed 14 people.
Investigation showed illegal construction, violation of fire codes, and failure to provide exits.
Legal Issues:
Charged under Sections 304, 336, 338 IPC — culpable homicide, endangering life, and causing grievous hurt.
Question of whether such cases constitute “culpable homicide” or “mere negligence.”
Judgment:
Bombay High Court held that the degree of recklessness — knowing the potential for death — justified Section 304 (culpable homicide), not just 304A (negligence).
Legal Principle:
When accused have knowledge that their acts (or omissions) are likely to cause death, liability escalates from negligence to culpable homicide.
⚖️ 6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1086 (India, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Leakage of oleum gas from Shriram Foods & Fertilizers in Delhi caused deaths and injuries.
Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Legal Principle Established:
The Supreme Court evolved the doctrine of Absolute Liability — stricter than English “strict liability.”
No exceptions for acts of God, third party fault, or lack of intent.
Importance:
This case laid the foundation for subsequent industrial disaster prosecutions, including Bhopal, Rana Plaza–type cases, and fire disasters, making industries fully responsible for risk management.
🧩 Key Comparative Legal Takeaways
| Legal Theme | Example Case | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate & Owner Liability | Rana Plaza, Tazreen, Kamala Mills | Owners can face criminal prosecution for unsafe workplaces causing deaths. |
| State Responsibility | Bhopal Gas Case | The State can intervene and represent victims in industrial disasters. |
| Absolute Liability Doctrine | M.C. Mehta (Oleum Gas) | No defense available to hazardous industries; liability is total. |
| Fire Safety & Building Code Enforcement | Tazreen Fire, Kamala Mills | Violation of safety norms constitutes culpable homicide if deaths are foreseeable. |
| Mixed Liability (Negligence + Intent) | Ali Enterprises Fire | Even with external causes (e.g., arson), employers are liable for unsafe conditions. |
📘 Summary
These landmark cases collectively shaped the modern understanding of industrial and factory disaster liability, emphasizing:
Criminal liability of owners and managers for foreseeable industrial deaths.
Corporate manslaughter as a prosecutable offense.
Absolute or strict liability for hazardous industries.
The duty of the state to ensure safety enforcement and victim compensation.
RELATED Blog
comments