CASE COMMENTARY: THE ISSUE OF BONDED LABOUR DEALT UNDER THE CASE OF - BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V/S. UNION OF INDIA BY - S NITHYASRI
CASE COMMENTARY: THE ISSUE OF BONDED
LABOUR DEALT UNDER THE CASE OF - BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V/S. UNION OF INDIA
AUTHORED BY - S NITHYASRI
LLM
The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar law
university,
School of excellence in law (SOEL), Perungudi,
chennai.
Judgement Cause Title -Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v/s. Union of India
Citation-(1984) 3 SCC 161
Judgement Date-16th
December 1983.
Court-Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India.
Constitution of Bench-3 Bench of
Judges.
Name of Judges-The Hon’ble
1) Justice P.N. Bhagwati
2) Justice Ranganath Misra
3) Justice D.A. Desai
INTRODUCTION
Bonded labour in India refers to a
system where individuals are forced to work for an employer in conditions of
exploitation, typically to repay a loan or debt. This form of labour is often
inherited, with children born into bonded labour following in their parents’
footsteps. Bonded labourers are typically not paid fair wages and are subjected
to harsh working conditions, making it a severe violation of human rights.
In historic times, bonded labour was
prevalent in agriculture works, brick kilns, industrial work like textile
industries, and also in domestic work. Despite its formal abolition through
legislation like the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976[1],
bonded labour continues to persist, especially in rural areas where poverty,
lack of education, and the absence of legal enforcement allow exploitative
practices to thrive.
Although the government has
introduced laws and welfare measures to combat bonded labour, challenges remain
in terms of enforcement, awareness, and social stigma, making it a persistent
issue in contemporary India.
FACTS OF THE CASE
A non profitable organization called
the Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the petitioner, examined several stone quarries in
the Faridabad district close to Delhi and found that many workers from
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Maharashtra were living in
appalling conditions. The petitioner wrote the Honorable Justice P. N. Bhagwati
a letter on February 25, 1982.
The names Eleven employees from
Rajasthan, thirty employees from Madhya Pradesh, and fourteen employees from
Uttar Pradesh were named in the letter along with their declarations indicating
their susceptibility. The letter concentrated on stone dust, industrial
respiratory diseases, and deadly injuries in addition to incarcerated labour. Additionally,
it noted low pay, poor sanitation, contaminated drinking water, and sexual
exploitation of women—all of which are enough to make workers’ lives miserable.
To guarantee the correct application of labour welfare laws, including the
Minimum Wages Act of 1948[2], the
Mines Act of 1952[3], the
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of
Service) Act of 1979[4], the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970[5],
the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1976, and others, the petitioner
asked for the issuance of a writ petition.
The Supreme Court considered the
letter to be a Writ Petition. Two lawyers, Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda,
were appointed as commissioner by the court to visit and work with the
employees at the stone quarries whose names were mentioned in the letter.On
March 2, 1982, the commissioners’ report was turned in, and it stated:
- There were numerous marble processing machines in use,
creating a dusty atmosphere that was uncomfortable to breathe in.
- Most of the time, people there were compelled to drink
contaminated water from a nallah since they lacked access to clean water.
- Because workers were
unable to leave the stone quarries, they resided in jhuggies constructed
of stacked stones and straw.
- They were unable to pursue damages for work-related injuries.
The Court mandated on March 5, 1982,
that copies of Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda’s Report be provided to each
respondent upon written request so that they could reply to the information
contained within. In order for the State Government and its employees to take
the necessary actions to address the problem, the Court has tasked Dr.
Patwardhan of the Indian Institute of Technology with conducting a socio-legal
investigation on the legitimacy of state tasks.
ISSUES RAISED
The Apex Court listed the following
issues after receiving Dr. Patwardhan’s comprehensive and meticulously
documented report:
1) Does Article 32 of the
Indian Constitution allow for the maintenance of the Writ Petition that was
filed?
2) Has the right to fundamental rights been
revoked?
3) Does the Supreme Court
have the authority to establish a commission?
4) Can the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act
of 1976’s provisions be used in this situation?
5) Is there any dispute
over the application of different worker social welfare laws?
THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE COURT
Issue 1: Does Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allow
for the maintenance of the Writ Petition that was filed?
The respondent’s contention of locus
standi was completely rejected by the Honorable Court. It used to be the case
that the only person who could ask the court for redress was the one who was
wronged. Nonetheless, the Court ruled in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India[6] that any member acting in good faith may
petition the Court under Article 32[7] or
Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of those who are impoverished and
lack resources and awareness.
Additionally, the Court determined
that the need of locus standi is not a sine qua non because of any limitations
in the phrasing of Article 32. The Court further emphasized that the definition
of “suitable proceeding” in Article 32 must be read as follows: the
appropriateness requirement must be taken into account in light of the goal of
the proceeding, which is the enforcement of a fundamental right. Because the
petitioner was acting in the public interest to defend the impoverished
people’s fundamental rights, the petition was deemed maintainable.
Issue 2: Has the right to fundamental rights been revoked?
The Supreme Court responded to the
defendant’s argument that no fundamental rights had been violated by stating
that the government was not expected to bring up such issues at the beginning
of the present P.I.L. by claiming that some workers were in slavery and living
in cruel conditions. In order to ascertain if wage slavery or other types of
forced labour exist, the Court’s investigation must be authorized by the
government. By definition, the P.I.L. is not an adversarial case; rather, it is
a challenge and a chance for the government to defend the weakest and most vile
elements of society. The Frances Mullins case[8]
was mentioned by the court. According to that case , the right to life and
unexploited human dignity were guaranteed by Article 21.
Issue 3: Does the Supreme Court have the authority to
establish a commission?
The court asserts that the
respondent’s argument on problem 3 that is the appointment of Commissioners is
predicated on an incorrect interpretation of the steps outlined in Section 32
of the Constitution. But as of we know Article 32 enshrines the power to issue
writs, give instructions, or make orders that may be relevant to the assertion
of the disputed basic right. This is seen from the phrase’s contemporaneous
form. Even if the requirements for granting any of these high prerogative writs
are not fulfilled, the Supreme Court has the authority to grant writs like
mandamus, habeas corpus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, and writs that
are comparable to these high prerogative writs.
Issue 4: Can the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of
1976’s provisions be used in this situation?
According to the Respondent, the
workers have the burden of proving their case under the 1976 Bonded Labour
System (Abolition) Act. Requiring bonded labourers to provide proof that they
are performing forced labor in return for a payment or other financial benefit.
In order for them to be eligible for benefits under the Act, they would need to
complete an exceptionally challenging, if not impossible, assignment. In
response, the Supreme Court declared that whenever forced labor is brought up
in court, there will be an initial presumption that the workers are performing
the forced labour in order to obtain financial gain.
Issue 5: Is there any dispute over the application of
different worker social welfare laws?
Because these are excavations where stone
quarrying activities are conducted, the stone quarrying in this case is
considered a “mine” in the sense of Section 2(j)[9]
of the Mining Act, 1952. Nevertheless, these stone quarries are not regarded as
“open cast working” because the holes go below the superjacent ground.
Additionally, in an effort to defend themselves, respondents invoked Section
3(1)(b)[10] of
the Act of 1952, which exempts quarries from the existing laws. Since these
mines are underground and not “open cases,” and explosives are permitted for
use in mining, the requirements outlined in section 3(1)(b) are not fulfilled.
The Court determined that the kedars
or jamadars are contractors under Section 2(1)(b)[11]
of the Cross Migrant Workmen Act, 1959, and that the owners also satisfy
Section 2(1)’s requirements (g). However, let’s say that five or more employees
in a company meet the requirements for Cross Migrant Workers as outlined in
Section 2 subsection (1) clause-e[12].
The Inter-State Migrant Workers Act will only apply to the establishments where
five or more employees are employed if they meet the requirements for Cross
Migrant Workers as outlined in Section 2 subsection (1) clause-e.
The Court decided that an
investigation into whether the state’s employers employed any interstate
stoneworkers should be carried out, despite the fact that the majority of
workers employed in Haryana’s stone quarries and stone crushers come from Uttar
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh, according
to Dr. Patwardhan’s report.
In order to meet the constitutional
requirement, the Haryana government was directed to implement the following
laws: the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961[13],
the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952[14],
the Employees’ State Insurance Act of 1948[15],
the Workmen Compensation Act of 1923[16],
and the Minimum Wages Act of 1948.
GUIDELINES
The Bandhua Mukti Morcha case[17]
played a significant role in forming Indian law against bonded labour. The
Supreme Court addressed the systemic problem of bonded labour by issuing a
number of guidelines and directions.
1) Identifying and rescuing
bonded workers-
Creation
of efficient systems for locating bound labourers.
Establishing specialized cells or task forces to free bonded laborers.shielding
freed bonded workers from harassment and threats.
2) Rehabilitation and Reintegration-
Providing
rehabilitation initiatives to aid in the life reconstruction of bound labourers.
Guaranteeing access to healthcare, education, and job training. Assisting
rescued bonded labourers in returning to their
homes.
3) Prevention of bonded labour-
Improving
up the enforcement of laws against bonded labour.
Using public awareness initiatives to increase awareness of bonded labour. Empowering marginalized groups to avoid becoming
enslaved.
4) Role of state
governments-
Punishing
individuals who engage in bonded labour severely. Keeping an eye on
working conditions in industries that are at risk. Working together with civil
society organizations and NGOs.
CONCLUSION
In India’s history of bonded labour,
the entire Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors case is
significant. In 1976, the Bonded Labor (Abolition) Act became operative. The
identification, release, and proper rehabilitation of bound personnel are the clear
requirements of Article 21[18].
The Act was enacted to safeguard the human dignity of enslaved workers in
accordance with the state’s Directive Principles of State Policy. The Indian
government would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution if it did
not step in. In summary, the court’s approval of the Public Interest Litigation
gave socially conscious people a platform to defend their legal and
constitutional rights.
[1]Bonded Labour System (Abolition)
Act, 1976 is No. 19, act of parliament, 1976(India)
[2] The
Minimum Wages act of 1948, No. 11, act of parliament, 1948(India)
[3] The
Mines act of 1952, No. 35, act of parliament, 1952(India)
[4]
Inter-state migrant workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of
Service) act of 1979, No. 30, act of parliament, 1979(India)
[5] The
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) act, 1970, No. 37, act of
parliament, 1970(India)
[6] S.P.
Gupta vs President of India And Ors, On 30th December, 1981
[8]
Frances Carolie Mullin vs W.C. Khambra & Ors, 1980 AIR 849, 1980 SCR
(2)1095 1980 SCC (2) 275
[9] The
Mines Act of 1952, Sec 2(j) No.35, act of parliament, 1952(India)
[10] The
Mines Act of 1952, Sec.3(1)(b), No. 35, act of parliament, 1952(India)
[11]
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of
Service) Act of 1979,Sec.2(1)(b),No.30, Act of parliament, 1979 (India)
[12]
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of
Service) Act of 1979,Sec.2(1)(e),No.30, Act of parliament, 1979 (India)
[13] The
Maternity Benefit Act of 1961, No. 53, Act of parliament,1961(India)
[14]
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952, No.19, Act
of parliament, 1952(India)
[15] The
Employees' State Insurance Act of 1948, No. 34, Act of parliament,1948(India)
[16] The
Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923, No. 8, Act of parliament,1923(India)
[17]
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors, (1984) 3 SCC 161
