This Case Commentary is written by A.Mahalakshmi, a Fourth-Year law student of Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology

CASE: Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union Of India & Others

CITATION: AIR 1984 SCC 802

CASE TYPE: Public interest litigation case (PIL)

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Hon’ble Justice N. Bhagwati; Hon’ble Justice S. Pathak; Hon’ble Justice Amarnath Sen

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 16/12/1983

INTRODUCTION:

The landmark judgment on this issue of bonded labour was decided in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India in 1984. This case dealt with the enforcement of the Act Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The judgment of this case monitored questions that had been raised against the identification of the bonded laborer by the state for its release by the authority and rehabilitating them after such a release. The court underlined the need for the government to take an active step in the determination of the bonded labor situations and tangible steps to liberate people caught in such exploitative situations.

FACTS:

The petitioner Bandhua Mukti Morcha is an NGO working for the welfare of the people. They happened to do a survey, and this led them to certain stone quarries in Faridabad where the workmen were in extreme situations. The working conditions there were very unhygienic and not suitable for workers of such stature who had come from different parts of the country to work here. The petitioner had, by way of a letter to Justice Bhagwati in respect of the workplace and working conditions of those workmen. This letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution and a commission was appointed to enquire into the allegations given by the petitioner. The commission established the allegations to be correct and there was an infringement of the rights of the labourers.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution is valid or not.

2. Whether any fundamental right of the worker was violated or not.

3. Whether the Supreme Court is empowered to appoint any commission or investigating body under Article 32 of the constitution or not.

4. Whether the workmen in the said case are entitled to relief under the various social labor legislation or not

LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED:

Ø Bonded Labour System Act, 1976

Ø Mines Rules, 1955

Ø Mines Vocational Training Rules, 1966

Ø Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

Ø Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER:

Ø There were several residues all over the so-called stone quarries which made it hard for any human being to breathe in;

Ø Some were working with the orders not to leave the territory.

Ø It would coerce workers to drink sloppy water from a nullah in case there was no way of providing them with clean water to drink.

Ø Workers were staying in jhuggies that were low to such ground that they were unable to stand up so staying in place was quite not safe.

Ø In other cases, certain employees had chronic diseases that ultimately affected their performance at work while in other cases, workers injured in accidents that occurred during the performance of their duties were not compensated.

Ø There were not even clinics for medical care, instruction, or nutrition.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT:

Ø This is equally visible through the fact that the state government of Haryana even adopted the argument that there was the use of forced labor, not bounded labor, in the workforce.

Ø In this case, while being a respondent, the State government of Haryana placed reliance on the proposition that the writ petition filed by letter under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is not maintainable since no violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and the employees occurred.

Ø The State of Haryana Is the Respondent, who has stated that the impugned order XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 does not vest any power in the court to appoint commissioners Ashok Panda, Dr. Patwardhan, and Ashok Srivastava, and the said reports of commissioners were not capable of being brought on record as they could not withstand cross-examination

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court declared the petition to be true and hence It directed the government of Haryana, the Central Government as well as other administrative authorities as follows:

Ø The Government of Haryana within 6 weeks from the judgment, shall constitute a Vigilance Committee in each division of the district to ensure compliance under Section 13 of the Bonded Labour Act, 1976.

Ø The government of Haryana is to appoint the district magistrate, who will identify the bonded laborers as per the law / The state government also must take the help of NGOs and other voluntary agencies to ensure the implementation of the Bonded Labour Act, 1976, within strictly envisaged time. The government of Haryana, within 3 months of the judgment has to re-habitat the bonded labourers.

Ø Both the Central as well as State Governments together must enforce the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Ø Offices from the Central government must make a surprise visit at least once a week.

Ø Central Board of Workers education will organize camps frequently to educate workers about their rights and benefits offered by law.

CONCLUSION:

The landmark judgment on this issue of bonded labour was decided in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India in 1984. This case dealt with the enforcement of the Act Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The court underlined the need for the government to take an active step in the determination of the bonded labor situations and tangible steps to liberate people caught in such exploitative situations. Not only that, but the judgment also underlined the great importance of safeguarding the basic rights of bonded laborers, treating them with dignity, and providing necessary support in rehabilitating them back to society. The court noted that the abolition of bonded labor is not merely a legal provision but also the moral duty of the state when it is bound to observe human rights. Indeed, in this case, the judiciary asserted new importance for interference with the exercise of state power to end bonded labor and protect the rights of marginalized sections of society. The case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha took one very critical step toward the realization of social justice and human rights for bonded laborers in India overall.

REFERENCE:

Ø https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2015/bandhua-mukti-morcha-v-union-india-ors-1997-10-scc-549/

Ø https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-bandhua-mukti-morcha-v-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors/

https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/bandhua-mukti-morcha-vs-union-of-india-case-summary/