Revision summary
The family, the strikers and the safety system are different problems that meet in one death. Refusing all money because of alcohol is harsh and may hide employer fault. Paying silently as if rules did not exist hides the drink and the machine. Recommend statutory dues, dignified ex gratia, a real inquiry, addiction and fitness-for-duty rules, and negotiated end to the strike. If the company was negligent, accept full legal compensation; the bottle is then not a shield.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
A death at work is a moral event even when the worker broke a rule. The family is not the strike. The strike is not a licence to hide a safety failure. HR must hold all three: law, compassion and the next living worker.
Body
Stakeholders
- The deceased worker and the dependent family.
- Co-workers on strike, and those who fear the next accident.
- The company, the Chairman, supervisors and contractors if any.
- Other employees watching whether drunkenness is rewarded or whether death is discarded.
- Inspectors under the Factories Act, 1948 or the Occupational Safety, Code on Social Security, 2020 framework as applicable, and insurers.
Ethical issues and values
- Sanctity of life and dignity of the dead: a drunk worker is still a person who died in the company's space.
- Justice: compensation is not a bonus for breaking the liquor rule; it is a response to dependence and to possible employer failure.
- Responsibility: was the site so unsafe that even a sober worker could die? Was alcohol access or overtime culture part of the story?
- Non-violence and dialogue: a strike is a legitimate pressure; a riot is not.
- Integrity of investigation: "he was drunk" must be a medical and witness fact, not a convenient sentence to zero the ledger.
Options and recommendations
Option 1: Refuse all payment because he was drunk
- Merit: upholds a clear safety rule; deters drinking on duty; protects a legal position if standing instructions were known.
- Demerit: may be cruel to dependents who did not drink; may ignore contributory faults of the company (unguarded machine, missing helmet, twelve-hour shift); inflames the strike; looks like dumping a body.
- I would not recommend this as the only line.
Option 2: Pay full compensation as if it were a no-fault workplace death, with no inquiry into alcohol or safety systems
- Merit: ends the strike quickly; looks humane.
- Demerit: hides whether supervisors sent a drunk man to a height; trains the shop floor that rules are theatre; may be unfair to the insurer and to sober workers' safety.
- I would not recommend silence about the alcohol finding.
Option 3: A split, documented package — humanitarian and statutory dues, plus a full safety inquiry, plus a firm alcohol policy going forward
- Merit: compassion without a lie; deterrence without humiliating the family; addresses root causes so the next worker does not die.
- Demerit: costs money; hardliners on both sides will call it either weakness or stinginess; needs careful communication.
- This is the recommendation I would put to the Chairman.
What the recommended package should contain
- Confirm facts: post-mortem, blood alcohol if lawfully obtained, time, machine, witnesses, CCTV, whether he was sent up after being seen unsteady.
- Pay immediately whatever is due without dispute: wages, provident fund, gratuity, and Employees' State Insurance or other statutory occupational-disease / accident routes if they still apply on the facts. Do not use drunkenness to steal a PF account.
- Ex gratia to the family, framed as humanitarian assistance from the company, not as an admission that drinking is allowed. Size it so that children can eat and a funeral is not a debt, without advertising a lottery for rule-breaking.
- If inquiry shows employer negligence — unguarded equipment, no screening, a supervisor's wink — accept legal compensation and even criminal exposure; do not hide behind the bottle.
- If inquiry shows the death was overwhelmingly the worker's intoxication against a well-enforced rule and a safe machine, still do not zero the family; keep ex gratia and counselling, and explain the distinction in writing to the union.
- End the strike through negotiation: a written timeline, a joint safety committee, and a no-victimisation clause for peaceful strikers. Do not hire a muscle contractor.
- Future: breath or fitness-for-duty checks where lawful, access control on alcohol, training, and a confidential help path for addiction, so that the policy is prevention, not only a post-death sermon.
- Communicate with dignity: no press photo of the bottle beside the body.
Merits and demerits of the recommended path (summary for the Chairman)
- Merit: lawful, humane, and safer tomorrow; separates the family's hunger from the shop-floor rule.
- Demerit: not the cheapest week; requires the Chairman to accept that "drunk" is not a full story until the machine is also examined.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD DEATH[Death on duty] --> FACT[Alcohol and machine facts] FACT --> STAT[Statutory dues] FACT --> EXG[Humanitarian ex gratia] FACT --> INQ[Safety inquiry] REFUSE[Zero because drunk] --> STRIKE[Anger and possible hidden fault] FULL[Pay and forget] --> RISK[Next drunk at height]
Conclusion
Do not treat the family as guilty of the drink, and do not treat the drink as irrelevant. Pay statutory dues, add humane ex gratia, finish a real safety inquiry, and bargain the strike into a safer plant. A corpse is not a clause.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Case study. You are the manager of a spare parts company A and you have to negotiate a deal with the manager of a large manufacturing company B. The deal is highly competitive and sealing the deal is critical for your company. The deal is being worked out over a dinner. After dinner the manager of manufacturing company B offered to drop you to the hotel in his car. On the way to hotel he happens to hit motorcycle injuring the motorcyclist badly. You know the manager was driving fast and thus lost control. The law enforcement officer comes to investigate the issue and you are the sole eyewitness to it. Knowing the strict laws pertaining to road accidents you are aware that your honest account of the incident would lead to the prosecution of the manager and as a consequence the deal is likely to bejeopardised, which is of immense importance to your company. What are the dilemmas you face? What will be your response to the situation?
Next question on this syllabus topic (2017 · Q14). View answer →
-
If he was drunk, is the company free of criminal risk?
Not if a machine was unguarded or a supervisor sent him up. Alcohol is a fact, not a full defence until the inquiry is done.
-
Will ex gratia encourage drinking at work?
Not if it is explained as help for dependents, paired with enforcement and treatment. Zeroing a widow is a different lesson, and a worse one.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Ajit has been recently promoted as the Head of the Department of Weapon Sales (DWS) in the Ministry of Defence Production (MDP). His charter of duties includes international sales of weapons produced domestically by MDP. In two recent wars, MDP weapons have performed admirably, resulting in many countries showing interest in buying them, particularly long-range artillery and missiles. Country A and country B have asked for these weapons. However, production constraints restrict DWS to accept only one purchase order. Country A is a developing nation with a sound technology base. MDP is planning R&D collaboration with it for the next generation of weapons. It is not part of any security alliance and needs weapons for protection from a troublesome neighbour. It seeks a large acquisition on a long-term loan. Country B is also a developing nation. Military strength is its priority, with the military budget often ingressing into allocations for human resources and infrastructure development. It is in security alliance with a superpower who has a large military base there and periodically allots it financial grants. It is a member of an economic bloc with which the government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. It is not a signatory of NPT but possesses smaller nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It supports some guerrilla forces abroad. It has sought a smaller acquisition and is prepared to make some advance payment. It is currently negotiating arms purchases from another nation too. Ajit discussed this case with his counterparts in the related departments. Therein, the significant economic benefits, employment generation and stronger diplomatic relations arising from this sale were highlighted. It was also emphasized that refusing the deal could result in country B purchasing weapons from some other supplier. Ajit was aware that in arms sales, due diligence at each stage was pivotal to ensure conformity to national policy and international treaties. (a) Discuss the options available to Ajit. Which option should he select and why? (b) How can Ajit balance nation's economic and strategic interests with ethical considerations?
Ethics Case Studies
This case study examines ethical dilemma in defense exports, balancing economic gains, strategic partnerships, and non-proliferation norms. Ajit must choose between Country A for R&D collaboration and self-reliance, or Country B for immediate financial gains and FTA leverage. The recommended course prioritizes long-term strategic security, technological synergy, and international humanitarian norms over short-term mercantile interests.
Q11 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Rajapuram is a border district. Jhara and Biru, its two major communities are in continual conflict with each other. The social fabric is fractured and demands mending. Ethnic tensions between the two communities have erupted into violence resulting in a large number of deaths. The stated causes are conflicting land claims, uneven resource allocation and inadequate political representation in government bodies. Separate relief camps had to be created for the two communities. The situation is volatile and appears to be getting out of control. Rajan has been appointed the District Magistrate (DM) of Rajapuram and tasked to quickly get the situation under control. His immediate tasks include restoring administrative authority, reopening the highway and initiating peace talks. On taking over his appointment, Rajan realized that the inter-community rivalry had even seeped into the local administration and police. With functional neutrality being the immediate casualty, it had made both communities distrustful of the government. The neighbouring country could utilize the opportunity to spur insurgent activity and further aggravate the situation. Rajan favoured a controlled approach starting with opening the highway to restore food and medical supplies. He toyed with the idea of requisitioning CRPF units to help restore administrative control. (a) Discuss the ethical issues that need to be addressed in this case. (b) What are the options open to Rajan? Which option would ensure protection of his non-partisan image without compromising ethics?
Ethics Case Studies
This GS4 case study examines the ethical dilemmas faced by a District Magistrate in managing an ethnic conflict in a sensitive border district. It analyses the ethical issues involving neutrality, human life, security, and institutional trust. It evaluates options ranging from purely coercive measures to inclusive peace-building. The recommended approach balances administrative firmness with transparent, unbiased stakeholder engagement to uphold public service values.
Q10 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WIFI connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to 'government regulations' would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.
Ethics Case Studies
• Balance strict digital rules with human empathy to prevent vulnerable citizens from losing entitled rations due to technical failures. • Avoid extreme approaches like rigid enforcement (causing exclusion) or unchecked discretion (causing leakage and corruption). • Implement practical offline workarounds like manual registers, paper slips, or OTPs backed by periodic audits. • Treat procedural norms and technology as tools for human welfare rather than rigid ends in themselves. • Recognize that digital gatekeeping creates ethical tensions between fiscal efficiency and the exclusion of genuine beneficiaries. • Guard against technology violating human dignity by forcing vulnerable groups to repeatedly prove their identity against system errors. • Ensure administrative accountability so systemic technological failures are not unfairly blamed on the citizens.