Case Summary
| Citation | Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | Bandhua Mukti Morcha (Bonded Labour Liberation Front), a nongovernmental organisation addressed a letter to a Judge of Supreme Court urging to release the bonded labourers (many of them being migrant labourers) from two stone quarries in Faridabad district. They were working under inhuman conditions, many of them being bonded labourers who have not given consent to this type of employment. The petitioner also affixed the thumb impressions of the said bonded labourers in the given letter. The Supreme Court, finding some substance in the matter, considered it as a writ petition, issued notice to the respective stone quarries and appointed two advocates as Commissioners to inquire in the matter. The Commissioners visited the quarries, interviewed each of the persons mentioned in the letter to find out whether they were willingly working and how their conditions in the stone quarry are. The Commission submitted the report confirming the allegations made in the letter. The Court then directed the copies of the report to all the mine lessees and stone crushers who were the Respondents so that they have an opportunity to file their reply. It further directed that the workmen whose names were listed in the writ petition and the report would be free to go anywhere that they liked. The Court also appointed Dr. Patwardhan of IIT to carry out a socio-legal investigation in the given matter. |
| Issues | Whether a letter personally addressed to a Judge be considered as a writ petition: – as per the definition of Article 32 of the Constitution? – in the absence of a verified petition? Does Court have power to appoint a Commission to make a report to Court under the scope of Article 32? Whether the petition attracted Article 32 as no basic fundamental rights have been infringed of the workmen? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The writ petition was held maintainable as the Court observed that there was a violation of fundamental rights. Firstly, they were deprived of the ―Right to live with human dignity and free from exploitation‖ under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court deeply examined and exposed the wide scope under Article 32. The Court has the power to appoint a commission or investigating body as it is an ―appropriate‖ proceeding to secure the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 32 is not confined to issuing high prerogative writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, quo warranto and prohibition, but is much wider to issue any directions, orders or writs. The three-judge bench laid down the importance of a Public Interest Litigation. It stated that a letter addressed to a Judge can be considered as a writ petition where the petitioner or the one whose rights have been infringed come from a weaker social and financial background due to which they may not be expected to understand the procedures for filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court. It is also obvious that the poor and the disadvantaged cannot possibly produce relevant material or evidence before the Court. In such cases, the Court should take an active approach to gather the facts and data, which can be done by appointing Commissions or investigating body, for the purpose of ensuring justice. It invigorated the spirit of a PIL and stated that any public-spirited person can file a PIL for the enforcement of one‘s or other‘s fundamental rights. The Court decided that an action has to be taken on the Respondents and they are liable as they have not abided by the provisions of Mines Act 1952, Inter-State Migrant workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979, and Labour laws of both Central and State which refer to the workmen‘s basic and essential rights. The Court deliberately discussed the related provisions of Inter-State Migrant Workers Act 1979. It gave a clear understanding on who can be called as a principal employer‘, contractor‘ or agent‘ and who can be considered as workers‘ under this Act. The Court came to a conclusion that the mine lessee is a principal employer‘ as they employ these migrant workers. These mine lessees have a settlement with the thekedars and zamindars on the output of stones laid out, thus making them as contractors‘ under the Act. According to the report of Dr Patwardhan, the thekedars‘ ask the old workers to inform‘ the young people in their respective villages (which are in other States), about the employment. Therefore, the workers come under the Act as they joined the work via agents‘. Concluding the discussion of this Act, the Court decided that the State of Haryana must take an action on the Respondents according to provisions stated in the Mines Act and Inter-State Migrant Workers Act. Further, the workers were also entitled to compensation under provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The thekedars who were deemed as contractors‘ in the Inter-State Migrant Workers Act, 1970, will be fortiori contractors‘ in this Act. The appropriate‘ State here will be the State of Haryana and should take according the provisions of the Act. The workers should be paid not less than the minimum wage stating less in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act 1948. |
| Judgement | The Court directed the Government of Haryana to draw up a scheme or programme for a better and more meaningful rehabilitation of the freed bonded labourers‘ in the light of guidelines dated September 2,1982. The Court directed the Vigilance Committees and DMs to take assistance on non political social action groups and voluntary agencies to search and identify forced labour to rehabilitate and free them as per Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
1 comment
[…] 46.Daryao v. State of UP AIR 1961 SC145747. Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969)1 SCC 11048. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 […]