CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Statement of the Problem

The study titled “Occupational Health and Safety Assessment of Workers in

Ready-made Garment Manufacturing Units” is an attempt to obtain a holistic perspective

of the work in ready-made garment manufacturing units with focus on health and safety

at work. It aims at assessing the health hazards and risks in the units using Hazard and

Risk Analysis, Body Discomfort mapping and Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA).

Guidelines for a garment manufacturing unit will be the outcome of the work. This will

be of relevance to small entrepreneurs and project planners in the field for designing the

workplace with due consideration to health and safety aspects.

3.2 Objectives

The overall objective of the study is to assess the occupational health and safety

of workers in ready-made garment manufacturing units with thrust on occupational health

and safety. The specific objectives are:

1. To prepare a brief profile of the ready-made garment manufacturing units and

the workers in the chosen units,

2. To understand the job context and job content in these units,

3. To identify the hazards, risks and health problems of the workers in this

industry,

4. To assess their occupational stress,

5. To shortlist the gaps in the work environment and facilities, and,

6. To formulate guidelines for a ready-made garment manufacturing unit with

reference to occupational health and safety requirements of the employees.

3.3 Design of the study

An analytical survey design was followed for the study. Analytical study,

according to Krishnasamy (2001), is a system of procedures and techniques of analysis

applied to quantitative data. A multi stage assessment procedure was followed for the

study with survey of the units and workers, followed by hazard and risk analysis and in-

depth study of the most significant problems. Suitable methods were employed to assess

the extent of the significant problems identified. From the gaps identified in the work

environment the guidelines are suggested for a ready-made garment manufacturing unit

with focus on health and safety aspects. The study was conducted between January

2002 and May 2003. Figure 3 presents the design of the study.

3.4 Operational definition of the terras and concepts used

Occupational Health: “Occupational health” is a collective term used to characterize all

the activities and disciplines devoted to maintaining and promoting the health, the safety

and the productivity of wage earners (The Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and

Safety, 1998).

The term “Occupational health” has been operationally defined as the health

status arising out of work, work environment and the mode of operation of work.

Occupational Health Problem refers to the job induced disturbances of the normal

functioning of the body and the workers’ mental and emotional capacities (French, 1992).

It refers to the occupational and work related discomforts and diseases that affect

the efficiency, the productivity and / or the general well being of the workers. In the

present study, the terms “Occupational health problems” and “Health problems” are

synonymous.

48

Ready-made Garment Manufacturing Units are the establishments which cut, stitch

and make garments out of woven or knitted fabrics without being involved in the

manufacture of fabric. In the present study “apparel industry” (Uchikawa, 1998), “ready­

made garment manufacturing units” and “garment industry” are synonymous terms.

Hazard is a source of potential harm or damage or a situation with potential for harm or

damage (British Standards Institution, 1996).

Hazard Analysis uncovers and identifies hazards that exist in the workplace. It generally

focuses on a particular activity, project or a given person’s activity (EH&S Manual,

2002).

In the present study “hazard analysis” refers to the assessment of hazards that

occur in various stages of the ready-made garment manufacturing process due to

improper work methods, tools and environment.

Risk is the combination of the likelihood and the consequences of a specified hazardous

event (British Standards Institution, 1996).

Risk Assessment refers to the assessment of risk by considering the severity and

likelihood of bad outcomes. Risk assessment is an effort to identify the severity and

periodicity of the hazards in a chosen industry.

Worker, as per the Factories Act (1948), is a person employed, directly or by or through

any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of the principal

employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning

any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other

kind of work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process or the subject of

the manufacturing process ( but does not include any member of the armed forces of the

Union).

50

In the present study the term is confined to persons engaged in garment

production work and excludes those working in the office or marketing section.

Job Content is the sum total of the tools and equipment used, tasks performed and

physical, perceptual and skill requirements to perform the job.

Job Context is the background information about the material, physical and psycho­

social environmental conditions under which the job is performed.

Posture is defined as the relative orientation of the parts of the body in space (Pheasant,

1996).

Working Posture is the posture adopted by a person while performing a particular task.

It is determined by the relationship between the dimensions of his body and the

dimensions of the various items in the workplace (Pheasant, 1996).

3.5 Area of the Study

Madurai, the “Temple City” in Tamil Nadu, was chosen for the study. The map

presented in Figure 4 shows the scatter of the ready-made garment manufacturing units

chosen for the present study. Garment production and sales has been one of the major

commercial activities of this place. A large number of families are involved in this trade.

Promotional agencies such as the District Industries Centre (DIC), the Export Credit

Guarantee Corporation (ECGC), the Textiles Committee, Commercial banks, the Centre

for Entrepreneur Development and the Small Industries Service Institution (SISI) are

located in Madurai to provide technical, financial and marketing facilities to the

entrepreneurs engaged in this trade.

In addition to this, an industrial estate has been set up exclusively for knitted

garments to promote garment units in Madurai. Governmental efforts are currently

aimed at establishing an apparel park to promote the marketability of the manufactured

51

goods, to enhance the export potential of the garments and to rejuvenate the textiles

sector in this part of the State. This park intends to provide employment to 20,000 people

(Vijay Kumar, 2002). The units have mushroomed due to the joint efforts made in this

sector by the governmental agencies, non-governmental agencies and also private

investors. The other factor that influenced the selection of Madurai was the proximity and

the consequent convenience of the researcher for making repeated visits to the units to

collect data.

3.6 Data collection procedure

The data for the present study were collected in three stages using different

methods and techniques. Each method is explained here in detail.

3.6.1 Baseline survey of the work in Garment units

Selection of Ready-made Garment Manufacturing Units

A broad based survey was conducted to identify the number of ready-made

garment manufacturing units located in Madurai City. The details were gathered from

the records maintained in the Office of the District Industries Centre (DIC), the latest

reports of the Textile Committee (Industrial Profile, 2000) and the Ready-made Garment

Manufacturing Association (Report of Tamil Nadu Ready-made Garment Manufacturers

Association, 2001). The total number of the units and the size of each of the units could

be ascertained from these three records.

In Madurai City, there were 98 registered Small Scale units. On personal

verification through visits and telephone enquiries, 37 units were found to be defunct. Of

the remaining 61 units, all those employing both male and female workers were

shortlisted. There were 54 such units. These 54 units constituted the sample frame.

53

From this list, 18 units (33.3 percent) were selected at random for the study. Of the 18

units, 12 were domestic market units and the remaining 6 were export units.

The investigator met the owners / proprietors of the chosen units by prior

appointment and sought permission to collect the required data. The purpose of the study

was made clear to each one of them to ensure their co-operation throughout the study. In

a few cases, repeated visits and personal appeals were necessary for obtaining permission

for data collection. Where permission was persistently denied, the investigator replaced

the unit with the next one on the list.

Selection of Workers

A total of 648 workers were on roll in the chosen units in an approximate

proportion of 1:5:2 in the cutting, the stitching and the finishing sections. In all the three

sections both male and female workers were employed. From each category one third of

the male and the female workers were chosen as respondents by stratified proportionate

random sampling technique. The workers from the cutting, stitching and finishing

sections numbered 27, 131 and 58 respectively, making the total number 216. Figure 5

presents the sampling design.

Method of Data Collection

The data for the present study were gathered by interviewing the owners /

proprietors of the units, through informal discussion with the section supervisors, perusal

of official records, observation of the work and workplace and by interviewing the

workers. Interview was used as the main method for data collection because of its

relative advantages in gathering qualitative and quantitative data from the respondents.

In the case of the owners / proprietors, this method was chosen to make the responses

54

spontaneous and reliable and the data collection work quick. The method facilitated cross

verification of the data for improving its reliability. Moreover, to gather a wide range of

data from a mixed population of literate, semiliterate and illiterate persons who are busy

or exhausted, this method has been recognized as ideal and the most appropriate.

Observation as a method of data gathering was relied on for recording details of

work, work environment, work posture and work sequence in each section. It was useful

to describe the job context and job content and to supplement the interview data.

Additional data were obtained from the records and reports maintained in the

units. It enabled cross checking of the responses received on work output, individual

earnings, wage rate and service rules and regulations. Health, safety and accident records

maintained in some of the units gave a picture of the major accidents at work site.

Tools Used

An interview guide was used for gathering data from the owners / officials of the

ready-made garment manufacturing units. It elicited details of the unit like the year of

establishment, the type, and the workers employed in each section-their number, the

wage rate and other benefits, the problems encountered and suggestions for improvement.

The prepared interview guide was tested for its clarity and consistency by giving it to

experts in the field. Their suggestions were incorporated. The final format of the tool is

given in Appendix-I.

An observation proforma was used for recording the details of the units such as

work sections, work area, type of furniture used and their dimensions, lighting, noise and

ventilation. The observation proforma is presented in Appendix-II.

56

The schedule administered to the workers was drafted in three sections. The first

section deals with the personal and family background of the workers, the second section

with occupational health and safety aspects and the last section with the personal

opinions of the workers on work environment, Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE),

strengths and weaknesses of employment in this industry and suggestions to improve

efficiency.

To prepare the first section of the schedule, queries related to workers’ personal

details such as age, education, marital status, years of service, age of entry into the

profession and family background such as type of family, income and occupation were

arranged in sequence. Queries related to occupational status and work schedule also

formed a part of this section.

For the second section of the schedule, open-ended questions were posed to 15

workers chosen from different sections in the garment industry and their health

complaints were shortlisted. The list thus prepared was modified by adopting the Nordic

questionnaire on musculoskeletal disorders developed by Kournika et al. (1987).

For the third section of the schedule a five point Rating of Perceived Exertion

(RPE) scale, with Very light, Light, Moderately light, Heavy and Very heavy as the five

classifications developed by Varghese et al. (1994) was used. For rating the level of

satisfaction of the workers with selected parameters of work environment, a three point

scale with low, medium and high (Sita, 2000) was used. Queries on the strengths and

weaknesses of the employment formed the concluding part.

The draft schedule was tested by jury analysis for content validity and the

suggestions of the experts were incorporated. It was then pretested by administering it to

twenty workers employed in two different factories other than those included in the

sample. The content validity of the draft schedule was checked from the responses

elicited and modifications were made by addition, deletion and rewording of certain

questions. The internal consistency of the instrument and its completeness were also

verified. The finalized schedule was precoded. It is given in Appendix -III.

Administering the tool

Appointments were fixed with each of the owners / proprietors of the garment

manufacturing units over telephone. They were interviewed at their convenience, mostly

in their office premises. The guided interviews took 45 minutes on an average. Quite

some time was spent in establishing rapport with them and assuring them that the data

obtained would be used purely for research work. In a few cases the owners’ /

proprietors’ immediate subordinates in the factory helped the investigator by supplying

pertinent records for perusal.

Prior to administering the interview schedule, the researcher established rapport

with the workers. As the workers were busy at work, they were interviewed either before

the start of the day’s work, during the lunch hour or at the end of the day’s work.

3.6.2 Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

For health hazard and risk analysis, a standardized format called “Identification of

Health and Safety Hazards and Evaluation of Health and Safety Risks” used in industries

seeking OSHAS certification (British Standards Institution, 1996; Tamil Nadu Control of

Testing of the Schedule for Validity and Reliability

58

Industrial Major Accident Hazards Rules, 1994) was used. The tool is given in Appendix-

IV. Figure 6 gives an overview of the Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment

Process with reference to the chosen industry.

Identification of Activities

This phase included identification and listing of all the tasks performed in various

sections of a garment manufacturing unit. Tasks that were routine, new or occasionally

performed and all those that led to injury, environmental damage or property damage

were enumerated. The activities done outside the premises of the garment manufacturing

unit were totally excluded, though in a few cases risks were noticed therein. Thus only

those tasks that were performed inside the different sections of the factory were

shortlisted.

Hazard Identification

Review of related documents and accident reports followed by personal

observation and sharing of the experiences of the workers and the supervisors formed the

basis of hazard identification. A single activity may pose a number of hazards. For

example, operation of a sewing machine can cause hazards like exposure to heat, postural

stress, needle pricking etc. For each hazard a separate analysis was performed.

Depending on whether the hazard occurred during normal operation or in

abnormal situations like machine malfunction or during emergency situations like

disaster, explosion etc., the hazards were labeled N, Ab, and E respectively. A single

activity can cause hazards in all the three situations, i.e., in N, Ab and E situations and, in

such cases, all the incidents were treated separately.

59

The next step in this hazard analysis was to ascertain the effect of the hazard-

whether direct or indirect. Most of the hazards occurring inside the unit were direct. The

indirect hazards were those which did not affect the workers directly, but affected the

factory or the community at large. Those activities posing both direct and indirect

hazards were to be listed twice indicating separately each category of the hazard.

Estimating the probability / likelihood of the hazards

After enumerating the activity and the associated hazards, the likelihood of each

hazard was computed from the periodicity of its occurrence. The occurrences were rated

from very likely hazards to highly unlikely hazards. The risk likelihood score of each

hazard was calculated following the guidelines given in Table 3.01

Table 3.01

Estimation of Risk Likelihood

Weightage / Scores Probability Risk Likelihood

1 Less than once in a month Highly unlikely

2 More than once in a month but less than once in a week

Unlikely

3 More than once in a week but less than once in a day

Likely

4 More than once in a day Very likely

Estimation of the exposure consequences of the hazards

Based on the exposure consequences, the hazards requiring first aid or absence

from work or causing temporary or permanent disabilities were ranked as slightly

harmful, harmful, very harmful and extremely harmful as shown in Table 3.02. To

61

enable further understanding of the hazards, remarks were recorded in the column

provided in the format against the specific hazard.

Table 3.02

Risk Consequence Level

Weightage Effect Descriptor

1 First aid required, but worker does not leave the site / premises

Slightly Harmful

2 Minor injury - requires absence from work for less than 48 hours (Non-reportable)

Harmful

3 Major injury, temporary disability — requires more than 48 hours’ absence from work (Reportable)

Very Harmful

4 Fatal or permanent disability, or major injuries involving large number of people (Reportable)

Extremely Harmful

Risk Evaluation

The risk evaluation was done in two stages, namely, “Concern” and “SSD

Scores”. “Concern” here refers to Domino Concern, Legal Concern and Chronic

Concern. Domino Concern refers to the hazards that have a set of chain reactions, such

as one thatched hut catching fire. Legal Concern indicates whether the hazard is illegal

or is regulated by law like noise levels in industries. Chronic Concern indicates the

hazard that accumulates over time and one day becomes a problem, which may or may

not be irreversible, e.g., lead poisoning. If the hazards are covered by one of the

concerns, then the hazard is considered to be a “significant” one based on the qualitative

assessment of the three concerns, and no further quantitative analysis (SSD scores) are

needed. If the hazards are not covered by any of these concerns, then quantitative

62

analysis in the form of calculating SSD Scores is needaito evaluate the hazards for

“significance”.

SSD scores refer to the Scope, Severity and Duration of the hazard. For Scope

(Sc), the scores ranged from 1 to 4, depending on whether the hazards occurred on the

spot, section and plant or outside. The Severity (Sv) score was computed from the

consequence level score and risk likelihood score by adding the two values based on the

ratings of the hazard oil these criteria. As given in Table 3.03 the risk severity score of a

hazard ranged from 2 to 8.

Table 3.03

Risk Severity Assessment

Risk Likelihood (from Table3.01)

Risk Consequence level (from Table 3.02)

Slightly Harmful = 1

Harmful = 2 Very Harmful = 3

Extremely Harmful = 4

Highly

unlikely =1

Trivial risk

(2)

Tolerable

(3)

Moderate

(4)

Substantial

(5)

Unlikely = 2 Tolerable

(3)

Moderate

(4)

Substantial

(5)

High risk

(6)

Likely = 3 Moderate

(4)

Substantial

(5)

High risk

(6)

Very high risk

(7)

Very likely = 4 Substantial

(5)

High risk

(6)

Very high risk

(7)

Intolerable

(8)

63

The Duration (Du) scores also ranged from I to 4, depending upon the duration

of the hazard as given in Table 3.04. The risk severity scores from Table 3.03 were

integrated with the values in Table 3.04 to get the total risk value of the hazard.

Table 3.04

SSD Evaluation Criteria for Risks

Weightage Scope(Sc) Weightage Severity (Sv) Weightage Duration (Du)

1 Spot 2 Trivial 1 < Minute

2 Section 3 Tolerable 2 > Minute

< Hours

3 Plant 4 Moderate 3 > Hours

< 8 Hours

4 Outside 5 Substantial 4 > 8 Hours

6 High

7 Very high

8 Intolerable

The Scope, Severity and Duration scores were added to confirm whether the

reported risks were significant or not significant. As per the guidelines, if any one of

the concerns like DC, CC or LC was recorded or when the SSD Score was 8 or more

the risk was classified as significant. Following the guidelines, the SSD scores of each

hazard experienced by the workers were computed. All those hazards with scores of 8

and above were identified and analysed further.

64

3.6.3 Quantification of Significant Hazards

Appropriate methods were used to study the extent and the severity of the hazards

identified as significant. Table 3.05 gives the list of the hazards identified along with the

method used for quantifying the same.

Table 3.05

Methods used for studying the problems identified

Sections Identified hazards Methods adopted for further analysis

Cutting Dust -

Stitching Postural discomfort Body part Discomfort

Noise Measurement of Noise

Inadequate lighting Measurement of Lighting

Heat Measurement of Temperature

Finishing Burns Health Hazard analysis

Postural discomfort Body part Discomfort

Though dust was identified as a significant hazard in the cutting section, no

further analysis could be done for want of personal sampler with pump and spirometer.

However, through interview the effects of dust exposure and the health problems of the

workers in the cutting section were assessed.

Postural discomfort

Postural discomfort was one of the crucial problems of the workers in the

stitching and the finishing sections. This was assessed by using Corlett and Bishop’s

(1976) method of body mapping. This is one of the most common and widely accepted

65

methods of obtaining information about body discomfort. Discomfort assessment is

inexpensive, sensitive and suitable for field work (Eklund and Corlett, 1986).

Ten subjects each from male and female workers in the stitching and the finishing

sections who were willing to co-operate with the investigator in the analysis were

purposively chosen for the study. Several researchers (Corlett, 1981; Courtney et al.,

1990; Chavalitsakulchai and Shahnavaz, 1991; Nag et al., 1992; Perez and Anda, 1993;

and Corlett, 1995; Reddy, 1997; Helander and zhang, 1997; Sita, 2000; Zend et al., 2001)

have used this method to identify the sites of pain and their intensities in varying tasks.

Description of the method

A body map as shown in Figure 7 was used for the study. It was handed, with a

five point scale, with the extremes anchored by the terms “no discomfort” and “extreme

discomfort”, to each of the workers asking him / her to judge the present level of overall

discomfort (Appendix V). Following this, the worker was asked to indicate the part /

parts of the body most uncomfortable and the next most uncomfortable part and so on

until no more parts were reported. The procedure was carried out at regular intervals,

namely, before the starting of work, before mid morning tea, before lunch, before

afternoon tea and before the end of work throughout the day to study the growth of

discomfort as a result of the work. The mean weighted score was estimated for each part

of the body experiencing pain and analysed further to make a realistic appraisal of the

body discomforts of the workers in each section.

66

NeckShouldersUpperback

Upper arms

Mid backLower armsLower backButtocksPalmsFingersThighs

Legs

Figure : 7

Body Map

67

Measurement of Noise

An initial walk-around survey was conducted to estimate the noise exposure level

using a precision sound level meter (TES 1350) set on the “A” weighting scale (Parsons,

2000). The microphone was placed in the employee’s hearing zone. The Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) define the hearing zone as a sphere of two-

feet diameter surrounding the head (OSHA Technical Manual, 1992). The spot readings

revealed that workers in certain sections had higher exposure levels. Averages of a

minimum of three observations were taken for ensuring reliability of the recorded values

(Belachew, 2000).

Measurement of Lighting

The illumination level was measured with a hand held digital light meter (TES,

1332). All readings were taken at the Point of Operation (POO). The activity areas were

divided into an approximate grid and readings were taken at each grid point. From all the

readings an average figure was calculated. Mita'l et al. (1991) adopted a similar

procedure for the measurement of lighting.

Measurement of Temperature

Workers in the stitching section complained of hazards from heat generated by

continuous operation of the electric motor. The room temperature was recorded using a

wet and dry bulb thermometer and the relative humidity was calculated from these two

readings. The readings were taken during the work hours at specified regular intervals

on three consecutive days.

68

3.6.4 Assessment of work posture

The postures adopted by the workers in some of the sections led to upper limb

disorders. For postural assessment, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) method was

chosen for the present study.

RULA is a survey method developed for use in ergonomic investigations of

workplaces where work related upper limb disorders are reported. It is a screening tool

used to assess biomechanical and postural loading on the whole body with particular

attention to the neck, the trunk and the upper limbs. This tool requires no special

equipment. The method is quick and easy to administer and can be applied in field

situations without interruption of the work. This tool has been widely used in both

industrial and office settings by ergonomists and physiotherapists. Reliability studies

have been conducted using RULA on groups of sewing machine operators and Visual

Display Unit (VDU) operators (McAtamney and Corlett, 1993; Herbert et al., 1997).

Identification of tasks and postures for assessments: The tasks and postures for

assessment were identified by observing the operator during several work cycles. The

postures held for the longest duration of work cycle or where the highest loads occurred

were selected. In certain cases, where the work cycle was long or the postures were

varied, assessment was done at regular intervals.

A minimum of ten subjects were chosen randomly for conducting the study. The

details of the postures selected for assessment are shown in Figure 8. The strenuous

postures were recorded using a digital camera and later they were analyzed.

69

Estimation of Posture Score: For estimating the posture score the RULA Employee

Assessment Work Sheet developed by McAtamney and Corlett (1993) was used. It is

given in Appendix VI. For each posture the investigator recorded the posture scores for

the upper arm, the lower arm, the wrist and the wrist twist in the columns provided and

the posture score ‘A’ was calculated using Table ‘A’. Similarly posture score ‘B’ was

calculated from the scores for the neck, the trunk and the legs using Table ‘B’. Later the

muscle score and the force score were added to posture scores ‘A’ and ‘B’ to arrive at

scores ‘C’ and ‘D’. For operations with one hand, either right or left, only one

assessment was needed, while separate assessments for the right hand and the left hand

were needed in cases where both the hands were used for performing the operation.

Computation of grand score and action level: The third stage of RULA was to

incorporate both scores £C’ and ‘D’ into a grand score whose magnitude provided a guide

to the priority for subsequent investigation. Each possible combination of score ‘C’ and

‘D’ was given a rating called a grand score of 1-7 based upon the estimated risk of injury

due to musculoskeletal loading. This grand score was obtained using Table ‘C\ The

grand scores reveal the level of estimated risk of injury and the action to be taken

thereupon. The inference made of the grand scores is shown in Table 3.06. The

procedure to be followed for RULA scoring is given in Figure 9.

Table 3.06

Inference from tSie grand scores

Grand scores Action to be taken

1 or 2 Acceptable

3 or 4 Investigate further

5 or 6 Investigate further and change soon

7 Investigate and change immediately

71

3.7 Analysis of Data

The data collected were coded, tabulated and analysed by applying simple

statistics like means and percentages. They were used to present data relating to the

details of the units, personal and family background of the workers and their problems.

Inferential statistics of parametric type like student’s ‘t’ test, ANOVA and non-

parametric tests like chi-square tests were used wherever necessary.

3.8 Formulation of recommended design dimensions

Based on the findings of the study, the recommended design dimensions were

arrived at following the procedure given below:

Selection of relevant anthropometric dimensions: The first step in designing is the

selection of relevant anthropometric measurements. When designing any furniture only

the relevant dimensions should be considered. For example, when designing a stool,

popliteal height, buttock popliteal length and hip breadth will be of more importance than

any other dimensions.

Selection of proper database and population : Only very few Indian anthropometric

data are available for civilian populations. Amongst them the majority have been

conducted on specific user populations. The dimensions given by Chakrabarti (1997)

were used in the present study for recommending the design dimensions, as this was the

only data that could be traced from the literature pertaining to Indian male and female

populations.

Selection of proper percentile and determination of minimum and maximum

dimensions: Percentile values are of much relevance when designing furniture and

workspace for multi users so as to ensure that the majority of the user population are

73

likely to find it comfortable. Hence wherever necessary the 5th percentile or the 95th

percentile was made use of for determining the dimensions.

“Minimum dimension” refers to a high percentile value of an appropriate

anthropometric dimension. “Maximum dimension” refers to a low percentile value of an

appropriate anthropometric dimension. The concept of minimum and maximum

dimensions has been made use of in defining and recommending the dimensions.

3.9 Delimitations of the Study

1. The study has been delimited to the work and workers in ready-made garment

manufacturing units with 17-56 employees.

2. The items of work studied have been delimited to cutting, stitching and finishing

of garments.

3.10 Limitations of the Study

1. The investigator made an appraisal of the existing situations using a select

combination of scientific techniques followed by previous researchers. The

limitations of each of these normative techniques will be reflected in the study.

2. The investigator, being a person outside the system, could not try out any of the

improvements in the real situation. So, the recommendations are mostly

suggestive.

3. Owing to lack of sophisticated instruments, parameters like dust, though found to

be a serious hazard, could not be quantified. Further the reliability of the

measures based on indirect personal rating could not be verified.

74