Discuss the application of Law in the 'principle of absolute liability' payable by an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous activity that poses a potential threat to the health and safety of employees.

Application of the Principle of Absolute Liability In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086, the Supreme Court sought to make a departure from the accepted legal position in Rylands v. Fletcher stating that "an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity that poses a potential threat to the health and safety of persons and owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone. The principle of absolute liability is operative without any exceptions. It does not admit of the defences of reasonable and due care, unlike strict liability. Thus, when an enterprise is engaged in hazardous activity and results in harm, it is absolutely liable. The industries involving hazardous processes generally handle many toxic, reactive, and flammable chemical substances in the plant operations which are potential sources of different types of hazards at the workplace. If these hazards are not managed properly, the safety and health of the exposed population is adversely affected and they become vulnerable to a great risk. The Supreme Court imposed an absolute and non-delegable duty on an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry. The Supreme Court held that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. Further, the Apex Court held that the measure of compensation in these kind of cases must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise so that they certainly have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise.