Labour Law

THE STATUTORY MEASURES TO PROTECT MIGRANT WORKERS UNDER INTER-STATE
MIGRANT WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT,

1949 AND THE DEPRIVATION OF THEIR ENTITLEMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION:
“As grasshoppers spread over the canvas of India's vast informal labor economy, what we hear
and see on the ground working with migrant millions, and what touches the core of our souls
must be told, must be shared”
-Rajiv Khandelwal
In Odisha and in some other states, the system of employment of Inter-State migrant labour
known as Dadan Labour is in vogue. In Odisha, Dadan Labour is recruited from various parts of
the State through contractors or agents called Sardars or Khatadars for work outside the state in
large construction projects. At the time of recruitment Sardars or Khatadars promise that wages
calculated in piece-rate basis would be settled every month but usually this promise is never
kept.1Once the worker comes under the clutches of the contractor, he is taken to a far-off place
on payment of railway fare only, usually. No working hours are fixed for these workers and they
have to work on all the days in a week under extremely bad working conditions. The provisions
of the various labour laws are not being observed in their case and they are subjected to various
mal practices.
The question of protection and welfare of Dadan Labour was considered by the Twenty eighth
session of the Labour Ministers' Conference held on 26th October, 1976 at New Delhi. It was
recommended to set up a Compact Committee to go into the whole question and to suggest
measures for eliminating the abuses prevalent in the system. Accordingly, the Committee
recommended, inter alia, that a separate Central legislation may be enacted to regulate the
employment of inter-State migrant workmen as it was felt that the provisions of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, even after necessary amendments, would not
adequately take care of the variety of mal practices. This is how, the Inter-State Migrant
1
Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, Available at: http://clc.gov.in/Acts/shtm/ismw.php
(Last Visited: 22 April 2018).
Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (30 of 1979), came
in to being.2
In this project, we analyze the statutory measures pertaining to rights of such workmen and
various case laws protecting their rights. In the end, we conclude this paper by analyzing this act
in totality and deciding whether the migrant workers are derived of their entitlements.
2. STATUTORY MEASURES FOR PROTECTION OF MIGRANT WORKERS:

The Inter-State Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979
provides various statutory measures for the inter-state migrant workers, related to their wages,
welfare measures and other activities in its 5th Chapter. The various related rights thereto are for
their wages rates and other conditions of service, 3 displacement allowances,4 journey allowances5
and other facilities6 etc. We shall discuss each of these available rights and case laws, justifying
them under this topic.
RIGHTS RELATING TO WAGES:
In relation to their wages, the rights for the workmen are discussed under Section 137. This
section promotes the basic principle enshrined under the Directive Principles of State Policy,
present in Art. 39 (d),8 that is, the State shall direct all its policies to ensure that there is equal pay
for equal work, notwithstanding that the workers employed are migrant workers or otherwise.
For this reason, the wage rates, holidays, working hours and other conditions of service of an
inter-state migrant worker shall be the same as a normal worker, performing his services in the
2
Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, Available at: http://clc.gov.in/Acts/shtm/ismw.php
(Last visited: 24 April 2018).
3
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Section 13
“(1) The wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service of an inter-State migrant workman
shall,-
a) In a case where such workman performs in any establishment, the same or similar kind of work as is being
performed by any other workman in that establishment, be the same as those applicable to such other
workman; and
b) In any other case, be such as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government Provided that an inter-State
migrant workman shall in no case be paid less than the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
(41 of 1948) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, wages
payable to an inter-State migrant workmen under this section shall be paid in cash.”
4
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Section 14.
5
6
7
8
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 39.
same establishment. In addition to that, the said migrant worker is also entitled to minimum
wages as specified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 9, and there shall not be any
discrimination relating to that matter. Another important conclusion arrived after reading that
section is that wage, ordinarily payable in the form of both cash as well as kind, is mandatorily
cash, in this case. It is so, to ensure that the contractor doesn’t discriminate and deceive the
migrant workmen by paying him anything in kind whose value is not the same, as that of the
cash, which he would have otherwise received, and was rightfully entitled to.
Some case laws in this respect:
Labourers working on Salal Hydro-Electric Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir10
In this case, the labour and industrial non-compliance of law where the letter pointing out that
the appellants denied the benefits of various labour laws and subjected to exploitation by
contractors11 The Court held that the interim judgment issued the comprehensive directions to
respondent to ensure no further violation of labour law. Corporation in which the appellants were
working also implemented as respondent. Corporation required to file affidavit stating as to what
further step taken for purpose of effective implementation of labour law. Affidavit filed by
corporation and material on record clearly stating that corporation as also contractors and sub-
contractors or piece wages not complying with the provisions of labour laws and welfare
amenities required to be provided under labour laws. Respondents directed to tighten up its
inspection machinery and to ensure observance of labour laws12 .
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and other13 :
In this case there was a public interest litigation filed alleging that certain workers living in
bondage and under inhuman conditions which violates Article 21 of Indian constitution 14 which
assures the right to live with human dignity and free from exploitation 15. The state under
constitutional obligation ensures that there is no violation of fundamental rights of any person
9
Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
10
Labourers working on Salal Hydro-Electric Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1984) 3 SCC 538.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and other, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
14
15
particularly the weaker sections of society. State bound to assure observance of social welfare
and labour laws enacted for securing workmen, a basic human dignity. There was an objection
by Government that no infringement of fundamental rights occurred was improper. Government
ought to welcome enquiry by Court in such matters 16. Issues involved in the case were that
whether the PIL not in nature of adversary litigation 17? And whether the PIL ought not to be
challenged as it gave opportunity to Government to make basic human needs meaningful to
deprived and vulnerable sections of community18?
The Court held that the Court must allow any member of public acting bona fide to file writ
petition on behalf of persons whose fundamental rights are violated and cannot approach court
owing to poverty or other disabilities. Under Article 32 19 Court is not bound to follow adversarial
procedure. The Apex Court has widest possible powers to enforce fundamental rights. Supreme
Court can appoint commission to enquire into violations of fundamental rights in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction. Under the Presumption of Section 2 (d) 20 and Section 1221 of Bonded Labour
System (Abolition) Act, 1976 when labourer is compelled to provide forced labour, it is
presumed that he is bonded labour. Such presumption may be rebutted by employer or State22.
 Displacement allowance:
The provisions relating to displacement allowances of the inter-state migrant workmen are
described under Section 1423 of the act. This section implies that every inter-State migrant
workman is entitled to a displacement allowance as a must. The value of such allowance may be
either seventy-five rupees or half of his monthly wages, whichever is higher. This allowance is in
addition to his earned wages and other remunerations and is not a part of it.
Some case laws in this aspect:

16
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
20
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Sec. 2 (d).
21
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Sec. 12.
22
23
“(1) There shall be paid by the contractor to every inter-State migrant workman at the time of recruitment, a
displacement allowance equal to fifty percent of the monthly wages payable to him or seventy-five rupees,
whichever is higher. (2) The amount paid to a workman as displacement allowance under sub-section (1) shall not
be refundable and shall be in addition to the wages or other amount payable to him.”
Rajan Kudumbathil v. Union of India24:
In this case a writ petition was filed for issuance of direction to take assessment of the migrant
Labourers in various parts of the State and to prepare a comprehensive scheme for making
rehabilitation and welfare and to implement the provisions contained in Inter-State Migrant
Workmen and to ensure that the slum dwellers and the migrant Labourers were not
attacked/tortured by the local populace and to ensure that offences of illegal traffic, sexual
exploitation and other types of assaults were not committed on the women and children and to
ensure that the migrant Labourers and slum dwellers were properly rehabilitated 25. It was held
that the Respondents would ensure that a proper study or assessment was made. Methodology
should be evolved to get these workers registered at the Panchayat or Corporation or District
level with provision to issue photo identity cards, making it mandatory for employers to report
about such migrant workers to the competent authority, if these workers were engaged by them.
Comprehensive programme for providing these migrant workers basic amenities can be
considered by the Government under a scheme. Respondents would ensure that the order was
implemented without any further delay. Hence the Writ petition was disposed of26.
 Journey allowances :
According to Section 1527 of the Act, the concerned workers in this act are those whose services
are requisitioned outside their home state. And because of this fact, it may not be that financially
feasible on their part to cross borders of states and not just turn up for their work every day, but
also return back home. Hence, the act imposes the liability towards the contractor to provide him
a journey allowance which is equivalent to the actual fare from his place of residence to place of
work and from his place of work, back to his residence. If the length of journey covers more than
one day, then the workman is also entitled to wages, during his journey period, as if he was on
duty.
24
Rajan Kudumbathil v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 15393 of 2009.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Section 15 “A
journey allowance of a sum not less than the fare from the place of residence of the inter-State migrant workman in
his State to the place of work in the other State shall be payable by the contractor to the workman both for the
outward and return journeys and such workman shall be entitled to payment of wages during the period of such
journeys as if he were on duty.”
Some of the case laws in this aspect:
Public Union for Civil Liberties v. state of Tamil Nadu and Ors28 :
In this case, the public Interest litigation filed to take notice of Court about tell-tale miseries of
bonded laborers in country and their exploitation and to rehabilitate those who were victims of
this practice29. The Court held that Court had already given various directions in its order passed
in Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, authorizing National Human
Rights Commission (NHRC) to monitor implementation of provisions of Act which Court
reiterate and directed NHRC to effectively monitor and implement provisions of Act. Orders
passed by Court, time to time, in writ petitions were to be duly complied with NHRC, Union of
India, States and UTs. Writ Petitions were accordingly disposed of so as to enable NHRC to take
appropriate steps and effectively supervise for carrying out directions issued by Court and
provision of Act. If States/UTs were not implementing directions given by Court, NHRC was
free to move Court for further orders30. Other Miscellaneous Facilities In addition to those
aforementioned provisions: The Contractor has the following other duties and responsibilities for
the protection of workmen under this act. They are:
a. “To ensure regular payment of wages to such workmen;

b. To ensure equal pay for equal work irrespective of sex;
c. To ensure suitable conditions of work to such workmen having regard to the fact that they
are required to work in a State different from their own State;
d. To provide and maintain suitable residential accommodation to such workmen during the
period of their employment;
e. To provide the prescribed medical facilities to the workmen, free of charge;
f. To provide such protective clothing to the workmen as may be prescribed; and
g. In case of fatal accident or serious bodily injury to any such workman, to report to the
specified authorities of both the States and also the next of kin of the workman.”31
28
Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, (2013) 1 SCC 585.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
31
Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union v. M/s. Nagarjuna Construction
Company Limited32
In this case, the writ petition filed to grant welfare facility to alleged workers who worked 12
hours in day33. The Court held that there is no canteen facility for workers. The contract labour
act Rules 43, 44 and 4534 deal with details and amenities of canteen and Rules 51, 52, 53, 54 and
5535 deals with the providing of latrines and urinals and Rule 57 36 has dealt with washing
facilities - Section 18(a)37 of the Act mandates providing of wholesome drinking water for
contract labour. All these rules are not shown to have been followed by principal employer and
its contractor in this case. Thus it is seen that Administration denied of even their minimum
amenities. Such recurrence should be avoided as far as possible in future. It is necessary that
State should take effective measures to see that employers conform to requirement of law.
Petitioner has proved his case and allegations made by him stand vindicated. Therefore the Writ
petition is disposed of as indicated above38.
 Payment of wages:
It is the prime responsibility of the contractor to pay wages to inter-state migrant workmen and
that too within such period as specified.39To ensure this, the burden also lies upon the principal
employer. It is his duty to nominate a representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor and it shall be the duty of such representative to
certify the amounts paid as wages in such manner as may be prescribed. 40 The Contractor must
disburse wages in the presence of the said authorized representative of the principal employer. 41
But in case the contractor fails to make payment of wages within the prescribed period or makes
short payment, then the principal employer will be liable to make payment of the wages in full or
32
Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union v. M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited,
1998 (3) SCT 451.
33
Ibid.
34
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Rules, 43, 44 and 45.
35
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Rules, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55.
36
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Rules.
37
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Sect. 18 (a).
38
Mahabubnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Union v. M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited,
1998 (3) SCT 451.
39
57 Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Section 17
(1).
40
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Section 17 (2).
41
the unpaid balance due, as the case may be, to the inter-State migrant workman employed by the
contractor and recover the amount so paid from the contractor either: 1. By deduction from any
amount payable to the contractor under any contract or 2. As a debt payable by the contractor.42
People’s union for democratic rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors43
In this case, the workmen in the construction work of various projects connected with Asian
games petition filed against the violation of the rights of the workers44 .The issue before the court
was that whether there was any violation of the rights of the workers by the contractor? 45It was
held that the workers voluntarily contracted to perform the service which was sought to be
compelled and therefore no violation of the provisions of the Thirteenth amendment. The wages
shall be paid by the contractors to the workers directly without the intervention of the jamadars
and that the jamadars shall not be entitled to deduct or recover any amount form the minimum
wages payable to the workmen and by way of commission or otherwise.46
Purnea Zila Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors47:
In this case the petition filed for Minimum wages to employees engaged by Contractor in terms
of provision contained in Article 2348. State carrying on an industry in discharge of its sovereign
duty Constitutional or statutory liability of such payment. The Sovereign duty of State
Construction of Irrigation Canal by State of Bihar. Cross drainage Syphon within territorial
limits of Kingdom of Nepal. The Agreement between Union of India and Kingdom of Nepal
Inviting tenders and assigning job to a Contractor49. The issue involved in this case was that
50
Whether on State or Contractor has Scope of Minimum Wages Act? And that whether the
minimum wages to employees whether the High Court has Power to issue writs? 51The Court
held that State as the principal employer in terms of Contract Labour Act, 1970 was statutorily
42
43
People’s union of democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, (1982) 3 SCC 235.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
47
Purnea Zila Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors, 1989 PLJR 493.
48
CONSTITTION OF INDIA, ART. 23.
49
Purnea Zila Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors, 1989 PLJR 493.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
bound to pay the difference in minimum wages to the concerned workmen. The High Court has
power to issue writs as a part of cause of action52.
 Liability of Principal Employer:
It is a known fact that all the labour legislations pertaining to the rights of labour are ultimately
for the benefit of the Labourers. Therefore, if there exists any default on the part of the contractor
pertaining to his payment of wages, or if any allowance required to be paid under Section 14 or
Section 15 to an inter-State migrant workman employed in an establishment has not been not
paid by the contractor or if any facility specified in Section 16 has not been provided for the
benefit of such workman, such allowance or facility shall be provided by the principal employer
within such time as may be prescribed.53 And later on, the Principal Employer can deduct all
such expenses incurred by him, which were not supposed to be paid by him, through the
contractor by deducting from the amount which would have, otherwise been paid to the
contractor in full.54
Case laws in this aspect:
Dr. Damodar Panda, etc v. State of Orissa55
In this case, a writ petition was filed for considering the matter as to how the provisions of the
act and particularly of Section 20 56thereof can be enforced. In the affidavit filed by the Union of
India in the Ministry of labour it was stated that in view of the scheme contained in Section 20
(3)57 of the Act that officer of the Originating State can make enquiries within the Recipient State
provided the Recipient State agrees to such Officers of the Originating State operating within
that State, the law has not become workable in a proper way58. The Court held that it was stated
that there can be no valid justification for not permitting the officers of the Originating State to
hold appropriate enquiries in the Recipient State in regard to persons of the Originating State
working as migrant labour in the Recipient State. There was no necessity to hear the other States
52
Ibid.
53
54
55
Dr. Damodar Panda v. State of Orissa, (1990) 4 SCC 11.
56
57
58
before making an order for enforcing Section 20 (3)59and to give effect to the legislative intention
contained therein. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly60 .
United Labour Federation v. The Corporation of Chennai61
In this case the Petitioners sought for direction to 1st Respondent Corporation to absorb
Members of Petitioner Union listed as its employees and regularize their services and afford
them just and reasonable conditions of service. Hence, this Petition was filed 62. It was held that it
was stated that the Development Authority was not an industry was consistent with principles of
natural justice and equity, justice and good conscience. In view of Directive Principles of State
Policy enshrined under Chapter IV of Indian Constitution 63, Sections 184 and 185 of Chennai
City Municipal Corporation Act, 191964. The High Court directed the Development Authority
not to terminate services of temporarily daily wage employees in a project, and follow principle
of last come first go and give preference to displaced employees for re-employment. Therefore
this Petition was dispose of65.
Hind Mazdoor Sabha v. District Collector and Ors66
In this case, the public interest litigation filed. Petitioner union had averred that irrespective of
serious exploitation of workers at hands of unscrupulous contractors, officers of Labour
Department were not taking necessary steps to prevent exploitation of workers 67 . The Court held
that the interim order has been issued and the commissioner was appointed. Respondents were
directed to permit Commissioner to do everything and take all necessary steps to carry out
commission without any hindrance and were directed not to create any obstacle in his way.
Workers were being exploited by contractor concerned which was evident from passages
extracted from report. Labour Officer had failed and neglected to discharge his function. Though
no directions to Labour Commissioner were issued in context of observations made by
59
60
61
United Labour Federation v. The Corporation of Chennai, W.P. No. 12544 of 1999.
62
Ibid.
63
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, CHAPTER IV.
64
Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, Section 184 & 185.
65
United Labour Federation v. The Corporation of Chennai, W.P. No. 12544 of 1999.
66
Hind Mazdoor Sabha v. District Collector and Ors, (1983) 1 GLR 788.
67
Commissioner in his report, however it was held that appropriate directions would be issued to
all Government Labour Officers and steps were to be taken to ensure that what had happened in
regard to complaint made to District Collector who was also ex-officio Inspector of Factories
under Factories Act, it would not be repeated anywhere else in future by any other District
Collector or any other Labour Office. Act had been made applicable to Gujarat and rules had
been framed under authority conferred by relevant provision of Act and it, however, appeared
that no machinery had still been set up under Act in order to carry out mandate of Act read with
Rules- Therefore, State Government was directed to set up appropriate machinery and were
required to submit a six-monthly report to Labour Minister as also Labour Commissioner. Hence
the Petition disposed of68.
Labourers working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors69
The petition was filed against the violations of labour laws of inter-state migrant workers
working in salal project devoid of benefits of provisions of inter-state migrant workmen act.
Directions to the central government for immediate implementation of this act 70. There was the
violation of provisions of 1948 act and 1979 act. 71 Issues involved in this case were that whether
72
the piece or sub-contractor comes under the definition of contractor? And whether the wages
should be paid as per the minimum wages act?73
It was held that the wages as per Minimum Wages Act 74 should be paid without any intervention
of intermediaries and free from deductions. The child labor are prohibited under Article 24 75
which prohibits employment in construction work as it is hazardous employment. The directions
to the central government to secure the implementation of labor laws76. The provisions of the act
conferring the benefits and advantages on workmen were not being implemented. No weekly off
day was being allowed in respect of workmen employed by 'piecewagers. Some minors were
also found employed on the project site. The minimum wage fixed for workmen employed on the
68
69
Labourers working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1983) 2 SCC 181.
70
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979.
71
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
75
76
project was found to be a rupee less than that fixed by the State Government for workmen
employed in the construction industry77.
Tradeline Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu78
In this case the Petitioner sought to quash show cause notice issued by Respondent under
provisions of 1979 Act and another show cause notice issued under provisions of 1970 Act 79 .
The question before the court was that whether the provisions of both statutes were applicable? 80
It was held that Prima facie it was clear that definition of term establishment was very widely
couched in both 1979 Act and 1970 Act, and it covered any place which could also cover
working site. Further 1970 Act also defined term principal employer under Section 2(g) and it
appeared that Petitioner would fall within that definition. Therefore it was clear that show-cause
notices issued could not be termed to be without jurisdiction.
Though it was stated that Petitioner submitted their explanation to show cause notice, no
opportunity or acknowledgment from Respondent was filed to show that explanation was
submitted within time stipulated and thereafter prosecution was launched. Apparently since
matter was pending before competent Criminal Court, Court was not inclined to express any
final opinion as regard merits of contentions raised by the Petitioner. Hence noting that
prosecution was initiated and Petitioner had also received summons from competent Criminal
Court, Petitions were without merit therefore was Petition dismissed81.
3. DEPRIVATION OF THEIR ENTITLEMENTS:
In some regions of India, three out of four households include a migrant. The effects of migration
on individuals, households and regions add up to a significant impact on the national economy
and society. In Odisha itself, close to 2 million people migrate out of Odisha in search of work
every year. Only 50,000 of them are registered with the authorities, making it difficult to protect
these desperate migrants from tricksters and exploitative employers. This is a very usual
phenomenon, the concerned act in this regard was put in place in the year 1979 and this is
77
Ibid.
78
Tradeline Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P. Nos. 14005 & 14035 of 2008.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid.
81
Tradeline Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P. Nos. 14005 & 14035 of 2008.
2016, we seldom see the change. 82 The Odisha government has also formed its own Odisha
rules in the year 198083, procedurally laying out the rules and definitions, but so far it seems
ineffective. If we rely on this news report84 then the position is way worse than it seems. It says-
“Shocked by the horrific incident of chopping of hands of migrant labourers from Odisha by
contractors in Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court pulled up the States for not having a policy
in place to prevent such atrocities and exploitation of such people. Taking Suo Motu cognizance
of media reports on the December 2013 incident, the court said there was a need for effective
steps to prevent such incidents, including exploitation of women, and law enforcing agencies
cannot be turning a blind eye to it.” 85
Further, “A labour contractor and his four henchmen allegedly chopped off the hands of the two
migrant workers after they refused to work in a brick kiln in Chhattisgarh.” “What kind of a
country we are living in. This has not happened in the most of the primitive time and world,” the
bench said.The bench said, “The point is, the law is dead letter in Odisha”.
In another news report86 SC pointed out that- “People are being treated like dirt”, as it flayed
Odisha and Andhra Pradesh governments for the dismal condition of workers. The apex court
expressed anguish over the “inadequate” steps taken by the state governments in this regard. The
bench further pointed out that- “It is terrific state of affairs. Either the measures taken are
inadequate or they are not yielding results”
The socio-legal study of Inter -State Migrant Workmen Legislation reveals that though the
industrialization has contributed towards the progressive movement of the society, yet it has its
inbuilt problems. This law has been enacted as a war against poverty ridden migrant workmen
82
Sudarshan Chhotray, Duped and exploited: Orissa's migrant workers, Infochange.org, Available at:
http://infochangeindia.org/livelihoods/features/duped-and-exploited-orissa-s-migrant-workers.html, (Last visite 28
April 2018).
83
Labour Directorate, Government of Odisha, Available at: http://www.labdirodisha.gov.in/?q=node/105 (Last
visited 28 april 2018).
84
The Indian Express, SC Slams Odisha Govt Over Plight of Migrant Workers, Available at:
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/SC-Slams-Odisha-Govt-Over-Plight-of-
MigrantWorkers/2014/07/16/article2332668.ece, (Last visited: 27 April 2018).
85
Ibid.
86
Hindustan Times, People being treated like dirt: SC on migrant workers, Available at:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/people-being-treated-like-dirt-sc-on-migrant-
workers/story2UfmJfGmdbh3IggSJ76KZI.html, (Last visited 26 April 2018).
when they leave their home-state and go to the migrant state in search of some job which may
bring lucrative wages.
Therefore, the policy-makers have been grappled with a serious question as to how to get rid of
the migrant workmen of the intervention of the middlemen or contractors or Thekedar or
Khatadars. Examples of such contract labour and their misuse and abuse have been in the air
particularly from the tribal areas of Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, the
InterState Migrant Workmen Legislation was born to nourish the inter-State migrant workmen
by providing an effective protective umbrella against exploitation.
Thus, the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Legislation strives to serve the cause of poor and weaker
section of the Indian society called migrant workmen. The Inter-State Migrant Workmen
Legislation possess the various dimensions of the problem concerning the migrant workmen.
Both the legal scientist as well as social scientists have exploded the dimensions of such
problems mostly relating to socioeconomic issues policy perspective, administrative processes,
legal aspects of migrant workmen.
Perturbed by perennial cases of exploitation & violation of rights of inter-state migrant workers
in Odisha, the government of Odisha, Department of Panchayat Raj has come out with
acomprehensive state action plan for ensuring enforcement, welfare, entitlements and protection
of rights of inter-state migrant workers moving within and to various states as seasonal
workers.87
Shramik (Labour) Help line telephone no 155368 has been set up to provide support for
rescue and repatriation of migrant labourers in crisis from other states. The government has also
determined to provide financial resources for sending of rescue team to rescue of migrant
labourers living in crisis in other states. The Action plan emphasis to singing of MOU with
destination States to protect the migrant’s workers’ rights, welfare and social security and
establish contacts with various welfare organization at the destination states to create contact
points to reach out to migrant labourers.88
87
Umi Daniel, State Action Plan to address migrant workers issues and concerns in Odisha, Available at:
http://orissamigration.blogspot.in/, (Last Visited: 28 April 2018).
88
Ibid.
Awareness creation and educating migrant workers about their rights and entitlement has
been prioritized in the action plan.
4. CONCLUSION:
In any decision made keeping mind, the object of the act shall not be challenged as
unconstitutional. This act itself clearly says that the wages should be paid not less than the
minimum wages restricted by the act. Employer should fulfil all the basic requirements needed to
the works like, for example: employer should provide drinking water, washrooms, etc. the wages
shall be paid by the contractor to the workers directly without any intervention of other parties
and they shall not be entitled to deduct or recover any amount from the minimum wages payable
to the workers.
The passing of act is not the benchmark that should be relied upon. Instead, an actual survey
should be done to know whether the facilities or rights are really being exercised by the ones in
need. In this project, we analyzed and reiterated the rights available to these migrant workers and
then we pondered upon, whether they are actually entitled to these rights or not?
And, as unfortunately as we may speak, such is not the case. There is a gross violations of these
rights, if we refer the article cited above.

Labour Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STATUTORY MEASURES TO PROTECT MIGRANT WORKERS UNDER INTER-STATE

MIGRANT WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT,

2. STATUTORY MEASURES FOR PROTECTION OF MIGRANT WORKERS:

RIGHTS RELATING TO WAGES:

Some case laws in this respect:

Labourers working on Salal Hydro-Electric Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir10

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and other13 :

Some case laws in this aspect:

a. “To ensure regular payment of wages to such workmen;

Some case laws in this aspect:

Some case laws in this aspect:

Purnea Zila Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar and Ors47:

 Liability of Principal Employer:

Case laws in this aspect:

Dr. Damodar Panda, etc v. State of Orissa55

United Labour Federation v. The Corporation of Chennai61

Hind Mazdoor Sabha v. District Collector and Ors66

Tradeline Enterprises v. State of Tamil Nadu78

3. DEPRIVATION OF THEIR ENTITLEMENTS:

You might also like