A new study by the Gujarat-based health rights organisation, Peoples Training and Research Centre (PTRC), warns that most workers in Morbi district’s ceramic industry—which produces 90% of India’s ceramic output—are at high risk of contracting silicosis, a deadly occupational disease.
Titled “Laws In Captivity: Workers waiting for the enforcement of the social security labor laws in Morbi", and subtitled "A study on compliance with social security laws in the ceramic capital of India", the report is based on a survey of 2,000 workers, of whom 1,729 (86.45%) were from the ceramic sector.
It finds that 579 respondents (28.95%) working in departments such as filling, glazing, checking, ball mill, ceramic clay, and molding “come into direct contact with silica” and are therefore more likely to develop tuberculosis (TB), silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer.
In addition, 196 workers (9.8%) employed in sorting, painting, packing, kiln, and out table departments have indirect exposure to silica. Another 954 workers (47.7%) may also be exposed indirectly, as they can be assigned to silica-heavy departments when needed. Only 271 respondents from other manufacturing and service sectors reported no silica exposure.
With over 1,500 ceramic units in Morbi employing more than four lakh workers, the study notes:
“It is well documented that ceramic workers experience higher rates of silicosis, tuberculosis, and lead poisoning. Ceramic products can contain up to 50% silica, with hazardous exposure occurring throughout production.”
Workers are exposed to silica dust while handling clay and to lead in ceramic glazes. International studies from the United States, Japan, Korea, Tunisia, and Mexico show elevated blood lead levels in ceramic workers, particularly those engaged in spray painting, glazing, and kiln operations.
Citing specific research, the study highlights that a Taiwan survey reported respirable silica levels up to 1,763.3 µg/m³, with glazers, molders, and granulation workers facing the highest exposure. A U.S. study found geometric mean exposures of 130–220 µg/m³ among ceramic workers, with glaze sprayers experiencing the most exposure—far above the U.S. permissible limit of 50 µg/m³.
Despite these risks, PTRC’s survey reveals that most eligible workers are not covered under the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948—India’s primary social security law for health and financial protection. Of the migrant workers surveyed, only 40 (3.55% of migrants and 2% of all respondents) had ESI contributions deducted from their salary. Among local workers, 107 (12.17% of locals and 5.35% overall) were covered. In total, just 7.35% of respondents had ESI coverage.
Calling these findings “very shocking,” the report states:
“If Morbi’s industrial areas have been under ESI coverage since 1967, it is shameful that after 58 years, 92.65% of surveyed workers report no ESI deductions. Neither the state government nor industrialists can evade responsibility.”
Founded in 1992 and headed by Jagdish Patel, PTRC works on occupational health and safety across Gujarat. Between 2010 and 2024, it lodged complaints with the National Human Rights Commission over 285 silicosis-related worker deaths in districts including Khambhat, Dahod, Jambusar, Chhota Udepur, Morbi, Surendranagar, and Rajkot. Since 2019, it has supported silicosis patients in Surendranagar, Morbi, and Rajkot.
For the past three years, PTRC has raised awareness in Morbi, identified silicosis patients, and helped them secure compensation. The current study was undertaken after finding that many affected workers were in ESI-covered areas and earned below ₹21,000, yet lacked benefits due to poor enforcement. Additionally, without proof of employment, they could not claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
In addition, 196 workers (9.8%) employed in sorting, painting, packing, kiln, and out table departments have indirect exposure to silica. Another 954 workers (47.7%) may also be exposed indirectly, as they can be assigned to silica-heavy departments when needed. Only 271 respondents from other manufacturing and service sectors reported no silica exposure.
With over 1,500 ceramic units in Morbi employing more than four lakh workers, the study notes:
“It is well documented that ceramic workers experience higher rates of silicosis, tuberculosis, and lead poisoning. Ceramic products can contain up to 50% silica, with hazardous exposure occurring throughout production.”
Workers are exposed to silica dust while handling clay and to lead in ceramic glazes. International studies from the United States, Japan, Korea, Tunisia, and Mexico show elevated blood lead levels in ceramic workers, particularly those engaged in spray painting, glazing, and kiln operations.
Citing specific research, the study highlights that a Taiwan survey reported respirable silica levels up to 1,763.3 µg/m³, with glazers, molders, and granulation workers facing the highest exposure. A U.S. study found geometric mean exposures of 130–220 µg/m³ among ceramic workers, with glaze sprayers experiencing the most exposure—far above the U.S. permissible limit of 50 µg/m³.
Despite these risks, PTRC’s survey reveals that most eligible workers are not covered under the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948—India’s primary social security law for health and financial protection. Of the migrant workers surveyed, only 40 (3.55% of migrants and 2% of all respondents) had ESI contributions deducted from their salary. Among local workers, 107 (12.17% of locals and 5.35% overall) were covered. In total, just 7.35% of respondents had ESI coverage.
The ESI Act applies to units with 10 or more workers earning up to ₹21,000 per month. Employees contribute 1% of wages, and employers 3%. Yet only 202 workers (10.10%) reported receiving salary slips, while a majority—1,121 workers (56.05%)—did not even know what a salary slip was.
The surveyed workforce was predominantly young: 1,153 (57.65%) were aged 30 or below, including 17 aged just 18. The largest age group was 26–30 years (585 workers, 29.25%), and only six respondents were 60 or older. Men made up 88.8% (1,776) of the workforce.
Most workers belonged to 263 units (222 in the ceramic sector). Only 147 respondents (7.35%) from 27 units reported ESI deductions. The average monthly salary was ₹15,943.46, with 894 workers (44.7%) earning below average and 1,106 (55.3%) earning more but still under ₹20,000. Two respondents earned ₹6,000 or less.
On health conditions, 63 respondents (3.15%) had received TB treatment—62 from the ceramic sector and one from the service sector. Five respondents were diagnosed with silicosis, all from ceramic manufacturing, aged 29, 32, 40, 45, and 47. They had worked in the industry for three to 14 years but were not covered under the ESI Act. None disclosed their condition to employers, fearing dismissal—a fear reinforced by past incidents.The surveyed workforce was predominantly young: 1,153 (57.65%) were aged 30 or below, including 17 aged just 18. The largest age group was 26–30 years (585 workers, 29.25%), and only six respondents were 60 or older. Men made up 88.8% (1,776) of the workforce.
Most workers belonged to 263 units (222 in the ceramic sector). Only 147 respondents (7.35%) from 27 units reported ESI deductions. The average monthly salary was ₹15,943.46, with 894 workers (44.7%) earning below average and 1,106 (55.3%) earning more but still under ₹20,000. Two respondents earned ₹6,000 or less.
Calling these findings “very shocking,” the report states:
“If Morbi’s industrial areas have been under ESI coverage since 1967, it is shameful that after 58 years, 92.65% of surveyed workers report no ESI deductions. Neither the state government nor industrialists can evade responsibility.”
For the past three years, PTRC has raised awareness in Morbi, identified silicosis patients, and helped them secure compensation. The current study was undertaken after finding that many affected workers were in ESI-covered areas and earned below ₹21,000, yet lacked benefits due to poor enforcement. Additionally, without proof of employment, they could not claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Comments