DPDP for Chemicals, Petrochemicals and Dyes

Are occupational health records treated as sensitive data?

No. The Act has no sensitive or special category. A worker's medical surveillance file is personal data on the same footing as her address, and the same duties attach to both.

That is not a reason to loosen how you handle it. The confidentiality you should apply comes from your safety and employment obligations, and from ordinary good practice. It simply does not come from a tier inside DPDP, because there is not one.

ACT · Sections 2(t), 4 and 8(5).

Must we erase a worker's records when he leaves?

Only to the extent no law requires you to keep them. The erasure duty is expressly subject to retention being necessary for compliance with any law for the time being in force, and factory, employees state insurance, provident fund and income tax record keeping all qualify.

The Act itself illustrates the point with a bank keeping client identity records for ten years after an account closes. Erasing early to look compliant can be the failure rather than the fix.

ACT · Section 8(7), Illustration (II).

Do we need consent to hold emergency contact numbers for a worker's family?

The family member is a separate individual and the data is hers. Collecting a contact number so you can reach somebody in an emergency is squarely within safeguarding the individual and running the employment relationship, and it is the kind of processing the employment legitimate use is there for.

The limit is purpose. That number exists for an emergency. It is not a channel for chasing attendance, recovering an advance or marketing anything.

ACT · Sections 4, 7(f) and 7(i).

If a contractor's chemical is spilled and we share worker health data with the authorities, is that a problem?

No, where a law requires the disclosure. Fulfilling an obligation under a law in force to disclose information to the State is itself one of the certain legitimate uses, and so is compliance with a court order.

Keep the disclosure to what the provision requires, and note which one you relied on. A statutory disclosure route does not become a general licence to circulate the file.

ACT · Sections 7(c), 7(d) and 7(e).

Health and medical records are a special category, so DPDP treats them differently.

It does not. There is no special or sensitive category anywhere in the Act. A worker's medical surveillance file is personal data in the same way her address is. The stricter handling you should still apply comes from your safety and confidentiality obligations, not from a tier inside DPDP.

We have to delete a worker's records once he leaves.

Only where retention is not necessary for compliance with any law in force. Factory, employees state insurance, provident fund and income tax record keeping all require retention, and each of them overrides the erasure duty for as long as it applies. Deleting early can itself be the failure.

Emergency contact numbers for a worker's family are just part of the worker's own file.

They belong to the family member, who is a separate individual with her own rights. Collecting them for emergency response is legitimate. Using them to chase a worker about attendance or a loan is not.

Our plant is inside an industrial estate, so the estate association handles this for us.

Every fiduciary answers for its own processing. The Act makes you responsible irrespective of any agreement to the contrary, so an estate, an association or a group company cannot absorb your duties on your behalf.