Death Caused By Overwork And Toxic Work Culture A Social Problem, Appropriate Policies Needed: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that death caused due to overwork and toxic work environment is a social problem which requires the government, labour unions, health officials and corporates to formulate appropriate policies.

Observing that the problem of “toxic work culture” is plaguing all booming economies, Justice Jasmeet Singh cited the example of Japan where a term "karoshi” -  which means “overwork deaths”, is used to signify a large number of deaths caused on account of “hostile working environment” which causes physical and mental stress.

“The government of Japan acknowledged this as a socio-economic problem and not a criminal offence. Subsequently, the government of Japan has drafted policies that address mental health in workplaces. I, too, am of the opinion that death caused due to overwork and toxic work environment is a social problem which requires the government, the labour unions, the health officials and corporates to formulate appropriate policies,” the court said.

Justice Singh added that there is a need for examination of the issues of overwork and occupational stress, focusing on mental health at the workplace.

The court made the observations while granting anticipatory bail to the former Secretary of Central Board of Irrigation and Power, who is accused of not taking action on e-mails sent by a manager who allegedly died by suicide in 2020 due to hostile work environment. 

The FIR was lodged by husband of the deceased against Chief Manager, Director and the Secretary of CBIP on the ground that they pressurized and abetted his wife to commit suicide on May 5, 2020 by hanging herself from ceiling fan at her residence.

The counsel representing the complainant argued before the court that since the Secretary failed to act on the e-mails and “encouraged creation of a hostile environment” in office, it led to the woman's resignation and thereafter taking the extreme step of committing suicide.

Observing that the “unfortunate incident” of death can be attributable to mental stress, the court, however, said that it cannot be brought within the parameters of section 107 of IPC, the offence of abetment.

“In the present case, the e-mail of 01.05.2020 which is the resignation of the deceased does not cast any aspersions of creating a hostile environment by the Applicant. In fact, the said e-mail is thanking the Applicant for the years of fulfilling employment,” the court noted.

The court also said that the emails do not seem to be indicative of the applicant abetting suicide by the deceased, and that the suicide note rather indicates behaviour of other co-accused.

Observing that both the co-accused were granted regular and anticipatory bail in the matter, the court said:

“Even assuming that the Applicant has not acted on the e-mail of 12.04.2020, the same according to me does not come within the purview of 'illegal omission'.”

The court said that at best, not acting on the emails sent by the deceased may be a dereliction of duty or a casual approach by the applicant, but cannot, by any stretch, mean to be an illegal omission under Section 107 of IPC.

“For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to allow the application and in case of arrest in FIR No. 644/2020 u/s 306/34 IPC registered at PS Adarsh Nagar, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,” the court ordered.

Title: V K KANJLIA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 72