Petitioner

May it please this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Westeros, this is Anurag Singh, appearing on
behalf of Petitioner.
Your honour as my co-counsel said I’ll deal with the first two issues taking 8 minutes of this
courts time.
Moving on with the first issue:
WHETHER THE MHA ORDER DATED 27.03.2020 IS ARBITRARY, AND THE
DETENTION OF SUCH MIGRANT WORKERS IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER
AMOUNTS TO A VIOLATION OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
It is submitted that restriction on public movements on roads and highways,
congregations, and any form of public gathering in order to protect spread of the
COVID-19. The order is unconstitutional because, the order is arbitrary [A]; the
detention in pursuance of the order violates the fundamental rights of the migrants [B].
In the present facts matrix, the order of the government which restricts the movement of
people on road is arbitrary as the restrictions are unreasonable and it does not take in
consideration plight of poor migrants who were forced to move to the their homeland due to
the scarcity and unavailability of food resources at the place where they were stranded. The
indigenous and migrant working class were abruptly hit with loss of means of livelihood and
sustenance, compelling them to come out on roads to travel to their hometown, however, no
immediate relief was provided by the government.
The responsibility of the States/Union Territories is not only to referring their policy,
measures contemplated, funds allocated but there has to be strict vigilance and supervision as
to whether those measures, schemes, benefits reaches to those to whom they are meant.8
Therefore, the order is arbitrary for being unreasonably restricting the movement of people
without providing any immediate alternative to worst affected section of the society.

THE DETENTION OF MIGRANT WORKERS IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2020

AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS .

This order imposes a restriction on free movement of the citizens and to assemble peacefully in
the territory of the nation, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. 9 The purpose of
Article 19(1)(d) is to guarantee that there shall be no State barrier. Article 19(1)(d) guarantees is
the free right of all citizens to go wherever they like in the territory of the nation without any kind
of restriction whatsoever.
Any such restraint imposed upon the freedom of movement would be unconstitutional unless it
can be justified as a reasonable restriction on any of the grounds specified in Clause (5) of Article
19. A state cannot prohibit the influx of healthy persons, seeking employment within its borders,
on the ground that they would become a charge on the public treasury.
The Article 19 (5) allows for imposition of certain restriction on the freedom of movement under
two circumstances,
(i) interests of the general public
 (ii) interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
However, in the present facts matrix the restriction imposed on the freedom of movement is
unreasonable. The migrant workers lost their means of livelihood due to the lockdown declared
by the government and failure of the government to provide any immediate relief forced them to
move to their hometown.
The Article embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.21 To
any civilized society, there can be no attributes more valuable than the life and personal liberty of
its members.

WHETHER THE SUSPENSION OF SEVERAL LABOUR LAWS BY ALL THREE

STATES IN THE GARB OF INCENTIVIZING ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES VIDE
ORDER DATED 26.04.2020 VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS,
AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION
CONVENTIONS RATIFIED BY THE UNION OF WESTEROS?
It is submitted that [A] the impugned order violates the Fundamental Rights of Workers and
subsequently, [B] violates the International Labour Organisation Conventions ratified by the
Union of Westeros.

THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF WORKERS

It is submitted that the State’s action is violative of the workers’/laborer’s fundamental rights
under Article 14,15,19,21 and 23 of the Constitution of India (fundamental right to livelihood,
dignity, living wages, protection from exploitation, along with other rights have been abrogated).
The term must be viewed not in a limited sense where the employees are physically threatened to
work. A wide interpretation of ‘forced labour’ is already subscribed to by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India.
It is also submitted that the right to health has been interpreted as part of the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution. (Please see Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC
1675) Article 42 calls upon the state to secure just and humane conditions of work and Article
39(e) to secure the health and strength of workers. the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P.
and the Apex Court itself provided the list of some of the rights covered under Article 21 which
includes Doctors assistance.
The right to health, leisure, safe working conditions fall within the ambit of the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution. The impugned laws are clearly in violation of Article 21, r/w
Articles 39(e) and 42.
Since the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Minimum Wages Act, 1948 are suspended there is no
statutory obligation for the factories and establishments to provide minimum wages for labourers
in these establishments. Therefore, the ordinance has essentially led to abolition of minimum
wages for labourers in these establishments.
The right to minimum wage has been also been held to be an integral part of the right to life by
this court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 1982 AIR SC 1473, as also
Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution
First, Article 23 guarantees fundamental right against exploitation. The Supreme Court in
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, [ (1982) 3 SCC 235, para. 15], held "it
is the constitutional obligation of the State to take the necessary steps for the purpose of
interdicting such violation and ensuring observance of the fundamental right by the private
individual who is transgressing the same." The Court further held that if "a person provides
labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour
or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words "forced labour"
under Article 23."
Article 21 guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Meaning of life under
Article 21 is very wide and means a life which is "meaningful and liveable with human dignity".
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union
of India,35 while dealing with the issue of occupational health hazards and diseases of the workers
employed in asbestos industries, held that "right to health, medical aid to protect the health and
vigour of a worker while in service or post-retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21 ,
read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48-A and all related articles and fundamental human rights to
make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person."36
THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS VIOLATES THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION
CONVENTIONS RATIFIED BY THE UNION OF WESTEROS
It is submitted that the impugned orders are also violative of the International Labour
Organisation Conventions ratified by the Union of Westeros on labour laws. The labour
enactments in Westeros is divided into 5 broad categories, viz. Working Conditions, Industrial
Relations, Wage, Welfare and Social Securities. The enactments are all based upon the Article
253 Constitution of Westeros and the resolutions taken in ILO conventions from time to time.
Westeros is also party to the Hours of Work(industry) Convention,1919. Article 10 of the same
says the principle of a sixty-hour week shall be adopted for all workers in the industries at present
covered by the Factory Acts.
It is submitted that even anold standard which was, prevalent in 1919 is not complied with, by the
impugned laws. The increase of weekly work hours to 72 hours clearly contravene Article 10.
MAGANBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS UNION OF INDIA - (1970) 3 SCC 400 (paragraphs
29, 77 & 80), to urge that any international treaty which affects the rights of citizens or modifies
the domestic law in any manner is not binding and cannot be enforced unless parliament passes a
legislation enacting such international treaty into a law. 40
The impugned laws are also in violation of the provisions of International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976, which also is ratified by India.
Art. 6(1) says: “6(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work,
which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely
chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.” This right is severely
endangered as a result of the impugned laws
In the leading case of Nilabati Behera alias Lalit Behera vs. State of Orissa[21], the Honorable
Supreme Court of India granted compensation for custodial death and it has justified the decision
based on the Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In
the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Others vs. Chandrima Das[22], the Apex Court while
interpreting the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and referred to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to provide protection to foreign rape victim. In this case the court
has observed that “the application of UDHR, and principles thereof may have to be read, if need
be, into the domestic jurisprudence.”

Conventions Nos 29 and 105 aim at guaranteeing to all human beings freedom from forced
labour, irrespective of the nature of the work or the sector of activity in which it may be
performed. The two instruments effectively supplement each other, and their concurrent
application should contribute to the complete elimination of forced or compulsory labour in all its
forms.
The impugned laws which suspend the Industrial Disputes Act are purportedly done so invoking
powers under Section 36B. A reading of Section 36B along with the above conditions shows that
the notification is ultra-vires of the Section for two reasons.
Firstly, the Section does not permit the state government to exempt any undertaking from the
provisions of the Act unless there is adequate mechanism for investigation and settlement of
disputes.43 It is a prerequisite. Secondly, the purpose of the section is not to give power to states
to exempt the entire Act without any other alternative, in a crisis like the Covid-19 pandemic . The
impugned notification exempts the upcoming industries from the ambit of the ID Act. With this, a
crucial rule prohibiting unfair labour practice also gets vanished.
Article 7 says:
“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of
just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular: