Rs 1 cr blast relief: Sigachi tells HC its share limited to Rs 42 L

Company tells Telangana High Court it will pay Rs 42 lakh per deceased worker, with the remaining Rs 58 lakh to be paid by the government under a July 1 agreement.

Hyderabad: Sigachi Industries has informed the Telangana High Court that of the Rs 1 crore compensation publicly announced for each worker who died in the blast at its Pashamylaram unit, the company’s liability is limited to Rs 42 lakh, with the remaining Rs 58 lakh to be paid by the government.

In a counter affidavit filed before the court, the company said this compensation structure was formalised through an agreement dated July 1.

Company explains Rs 42 L component

It stated that the Rs 42 lakh component covers statutory dues such as ESI, provident fund and insurance, in addition to the ex gratia amount announced after the June 30 explosion at its Pashamylaram facility in Sangareddy district.

Sigachi told the court that it has already disbursed amounts ranging between Rs 5 lakh and Rs 30 lakh to the bereaved families in multiple instalments.

It further said post-dated cheques have been issued to ensure that the full Rs 42 lakh per family is paid by March this year, projecting these payments as proof of compliance with statutory obligations and the compensation package.

Affidavit in response to PIL seeking CBI probe

The affidavit was filed in response to a public interest litigation seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Opposing the plea, the company asserted that it has been operating the plant for nearly three decades without any criminal cases and denied allegations of negligence in plant operation or maintenance. It argued that criminal liability cannot be fixed before the completion of the ongoing investigation.

Several records destroyed in blast: Sigachi

Sigachi also informed the High Court that several records were destroyed in the blast, while the remaining documents have been seized by investigating authorities, constraining its ability to place supporting material on record at this stage.

It urged the court not to order arrests, prosecution or other criminal action under its writ jurisdiction at this preliminary phase, and sought dismissal of the PIL with costs, contending that it seeks premature and coercive directions.