>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Shao Zhongguo v. Huangpu District Work Safety Bureau (Case on Administrative Penalty Decision on Work Safety)
邵仲国诉黄浦区安监局安全生产行政处罚决定案
【法宝引证码】

Shao Zhongguo v. Huangpu District Work Safety Bureau (Case on Administrative Penalty Decision on Work Safety)
(Case on Administrative Penalty Decision on Work Safety)
邵仲国诉黄浦区安监局安全生产行政处罚决定案

Shao Zhongguo v. Huangpu District Work Safety Bureau
(Case on Administrative Penalty Decision on Work Safety)@#
@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Shao Zhongguo, male, 56, dwelling at Fahuazhen Road, Shanghai City.@#
Defendant: Work Safety Administrative Bureau of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality, domiciled at Jiangxi Middle Road, Shanghai City.@#
Legal Representative: Zhen Fumin, director general of the Bureau.@#
Shao Zhongguo, the plaintiff, was dissatisfied with the administrative penalty decision on work safety which was made by Work Safety Administrative Bureau of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Huangpu District Work Safety Bureau), and brought an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Huangpu District Court).@#
Shao Zhongguo alleged: on November 7, 2005, Huangpu District Work Safety Bureau decided by No. 2120050024 administrative penalty decision to impose a fine of CNY 20,000 in accordance with the relevant legal provisions in the “Work Safety Law of the People's Republic of China” (hereinafter referred to as the “Work Safety Law”) on the ground that Shao Zhongguo was the person held principally liable for a work-related injury accident of Shanghai Mike Western Pastry Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as Mike Company). Mike Company has its own work safety bylaws, and the quality inspection of its relevant production equipment has also been made. As the principal person-in-charge of Mike Company, Shao Zhongguo only took charge of its operations, and the work safety was under the charge of someone else. In addition, as required by law, only when a serious injury accident occurs may the person held principally liable be subject to legal liabilities, but whether it is a serious injury accident shall be ascertained in accordance with the “Standards for Appraising Serious Human Injuries”. In accordance with the “Opinions of Shanghai Municipal Labor Bureau on Implementing the Provisions on Reporting and Handling Injury or Death Accidents of Enterprise Employees” (hereinafter referred to as the Opinions of the Municipal Labor Bureau), Huangpu District Work Safety Bureau ascertained a work-related injury accident which is not a serious injury as a serious injury accident, and penalized Shao Zhongguo who was not the person held principally liable. In the administrative penalty decision, the ascertainment of facts was unclear, and the application of laws was incorrect, hence Shao Zhongguo pleaded the court to adjudicate to overrule Huangpu District Work Safety Bureau's this specific administrative act.@#
Shao Zhongguo submitted the following items of evidence:@#
1. No. 2120050024 administrative penalty decision and a detailed list of express mails, which prove that the specific administrative act sued did exist and that the lawsuit brought by Shao Zhongguo who was the administered party of the specific administrative act did not exceed the limitation of action;@#
2. Mike Company's business license, its safety bylaws made in May 2002, its bran mill operational rules made in August 2005, its security management bylaws made in September 2005, and the inspection report made by Ji'nan Municipal Product Quality Supervision and Inspection Office in July 2005 on the puffed food machine delivered by Ji'nan Dayi Machinery Limited Company for inspection, which prove that Mike Company is a lawful business operator, had work safety bylaws before the accident occurred, its relevant production equipment had passed quality inspection, and it had improved the relevant bylaws after the accident occurred;@#
3. No. 0512-0010 “Letter of Appraisal Conclusion” of the Working Capacity Appraisal Committee of Huangpu District, Shanghai Municipality, the letter of Jiang Jizhong (employee-victim in the work-related injury accident) to the relevant department, and a photocopy of his identity card, the “Report on Requesting Exemption of Mike Company from Administrative Penalty” of Shanghai Huangpu Grains, Oils and Foodstuff Development Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as Huangpu Grains and Oils Company), which prove that Jiang Jizhong suffered from disability of Grade 7 due to work-related injury, that he recovered well after being injured, and that both Jiang Jizhong and Mike Company's superior company requested exemption of Mike Company from administrative penalty;@#
......

 

邵仲国诉黄浦区安监局安全生产行政处罚决定案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
安全生产法》第八十一条第二款所称“前款违法行为”,是指该条第一款“生产经营单位的主要负责人未履行本法规定的安全生产管理职责”的行为。这种违法行为无论是否被安全生产监管部门发现并责令限期改正,只要导致发生了生产安全事故,安全生产监管部门都有权依照《安全生产法》第八十一条第二款规定,直接对生产经营单位的主要负责人给予行政处罚,不必先责令限期改正后再实施行政处罚。@#
@#
原告:邵仲国,男,56岁,住上海市法华镇路。@#
被告:上海市黄浦区安全生产监督管理局,住所地:上海市江西中路。@#
法定代表人:郑福民,该局局长。@#
原告邵仲国不服被告上海市黄浦区安全生产监督管理局(以下简称黄浦区安监局)对其作出的安全生产行政处罚决定,向上海市黄浦区人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告邵仲国诉称:2005年11月7日,被告黄浦区安监局作出第2120050024号行政处罚决定,以原告是上海麦克西饼有限公司(以下简称麦克公司)一次工伤事故的主要责任人为由,根据《中华人民共和国安全生产法》(以下简称《安全生产法》)的相关规定,决定罚款2万元。麦克公司有安全生产制度,相关生产设备也经过质量检验。作为麦克公司的主要负责人,原告只负责经营,生产安全另有他人负责。再有,按照法律规定,只有发生重伤事故才追究主要责任人的法律责任,而是否为重伤事故,应当根据《人体重伤鉴定标准》进行认定。被告按照《上海市劳动局关于贯彻<企业职工伤亡事故报告和处理规定>的意见》(以下简称市劳动局意见),把不属于重伤的此次工伤事故认定为重伤事故,并对不是主要责任人的原告进行处罚。该行政处罚决定认定事实不清、适用法律不当,请求判令撤销被告的这一具体行政行为。@#
原告邵仲国提交以下证据:@#
1.第2120050024号行政处罚决定书、特快专递邮件详情单,用以证明被诉具体行政行为客观存在,作为该具体行政行为的相对人,邵仲国的起诉未超过起诉期限;@#
2.麦克公司营业执照,该公司于2002年5月制订的安全制度、2005年8月制订的粉糠机操作规程、2005年9月制订的治安安全管理制度,济南市产品质量监督检验所于2005年7月对济南大亿机械有限公司送检的膨化食品机械的检验报告,用以证明麦克公司是合法经营者,事故发生前有安全生产制度,相关生产设备也进行过质量检查,事故发生后又完善了相关制度;@#
3.上海市黄浦区劳动能力鉴定委员会劳鉴(黄)字0512-0010号《鉴定结论书》,本次工伤事故的受伤职工姜继忠致有关部门的信函及其身份证复印件,上海黄浦粮油食品发展有限公司(以下简称黄浦粮油公司)《关于请求对麦克公司免予行政处罚的报告》,用以证明姜继忠因工伤致残的程度为七级,受伤后恢复良好,姜继忠和麦克公司的上级公司均要求免除对麦克公司所作的行政处罚;@#
4.黄浦粮油公司向上海市黄浦区人民政府递交的申诉材料,用以证明麦克公司是受到误导,才在调查报告中承认该公司安全生产管理制度不健全。@#
被告黄浦区安监局辩称:作为法定的安全生产监督管理部门,被告经过调查查明:在麦克公司此次发生的工伤事故中,员工姜继忠的右手尺、桡骨骨折,第2、4掌骨粉碎性骨折。根据市劳动局意见的规定,被告认定此次工伤事故为重伤事故,并依照《安全生产法》的规定,决定对作为麦克公司主要负责人的原告邵仲国处以2万元罚款。被告的上述具体行政行为,认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,法院应当维持。@#
被告黄浦区安监局提交以下证据:@#
1.麦克公司制作的《事故情况经过》、《陈述笔录》、事故现场照片,用以证明事故发生经过以及事故的起因是麦克公司违反了安全生产管理制度;@#
2.工伤事故《紧急通报》、《姜继忠重伤事故调查报告》,用以证明麦克公司的上级公司黄浦粮油公司经调查认为,麦克公司发生的工伤事故为重伤事故,原告邵仲国对事故负有主要责任;@#
3.《工伤认定书》,用以证明上海市黄浦区劳动和社会保障局认定此次事故为工伤事故;@#
4.医院接诊病史、出院记录、出院小结、医疗费现金收据、医疗保险费结算单,用以证明姜继忠的伤情,以及姜继忠是按照工伤进行费用结算;@#
5.《关于发生姜继忠工伤事故的思想认识》,用以证明原告邵仲国承认其对麦克公司的安全生产管理不够重视,对此次发生的工伤事故负有责任;@#
6.《立案审批表》、《案件处理报批表》、《行政处罚事先告知书》、送达回执和《行政处罚决定书》,用以证明被告黄浦区安监局作出行政处罚决定经过的程序;@#
7.《企业职工伤亡事故报告和处理规定》第九条、第十四条,市劳动局意见第五条,用以证明认定此次工伤为重伤的依据;@#
8.《安全生产法》十七条第(一)、 (二)、(四)项,第八十一条第一、二款,《安全生产违法行为行政处罚办法》第三十六条第一款第(一)、(二)、(四)项及该条第二款第(一)项,用以证明作出行政处罚决定的法律依据;@#
9.《安全生产违法行为行政处罚办法》第十三条、第十四条、第二十一条第一款、第二十二条,用以证明行政处罚的程序依据;@#
10.《安全生产法》九条第一款、《安全生产违法行为行政处罚办法》第三十四条,用以证明作出行政处罚决定的权力依据。@#
法庭主持了庭审质证。对被告黄浦区安监局提交的证据,原告邵仲国有以下异议:证据2中《姜继忠重伤事故调查报告》称“粉糠机无铭牌标记、无产品合格证、无生产厂家”与事实不符;证据5《关于发生姜继忠工伤事故的思想认识》,是原告在受到误导的情况下所写,其中关于麦克公司无安全生产制度以及原告对麦克公司的安全生产负有责任等内容不真实;证据7中的市劳动局意见效力层次较低,且这个意见应当由劳动行政管理部门执行,不能作为被告的执法依据。依照劳动部办公厅劳办发[1993]140号《企业职工伤亡事故报告统计问题解答》中对重伤的解答,姜继忠的伤势不属重伤范畴,是否构成重伤应当按照司法部、最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部联合发布的《人体重伤鉴定标准》认定。即使适用市劳动局意见,也应适用该意见中有关四肢伤害部分的标准,认定姜继忠的伤势为非重伤,不应适用骨折部分的标准认定为重伤;证据8虽然将《安全生产法》八十一条第一款列为执法依据,但被告从未责令原告对麦克公司的安全生产管理限期整改,而是直接进行处罚。对黄浦区安监局提交的其他证据,邵仲国无异议。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥800.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese