LABOUR LAW PROJECT REPORT

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.

Union of India and Others
(1984)
Case Brief
ll
Submitted To: Submitted By:
Dr. Virender Negi Preetleen Kaur
University Institute of Legal studies, R.No. 183/16
Punjab University BCom LLB
Chandigarh Semester IX
Section D
 

University Institute of Legal Studies

1
Table of Contents

Acknowledgment 3
Details of the case 4
Introduction 4
Legal Principles Involved 4
Facts of the Case 5
Issues Under Consideration 6
Arguments Advanced: 7
Judgment 8
Conclusion 12
Bibliography 13
Acknowledgment

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Prof. Rajinder Kaur, Director, U.I.L.S.,

Panjab University, for providing me with all the means necessary for the
completion of this project.

I place on record, my sincere gratitude to Dr. Virender Negi, U.I.L.S.. I am

extremely grateful and indebted to him for the expert, sincere and valuable
guidance and encouragement extended to me.

I would also like to express my sense of gratitude to one and all who directly or
indirectly have lent a helping hand in this venture.
Details of the case
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AIR 1984 SCC 802

Petitioner: Bandhua Mukti Morcha

Respondent: Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 16 December, 1983

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

Introduction
The Petitioner was an organisation dedicated to the cause of release of bonded labourers. It
conducted a survey in stone quarries and mines in Faridabad district. It found that several
workmen in these mines were migrant workers from other States in India who were bonded
labourers. They were living in conditions of abject poverty. The mine owners did not provide
them with shelter, clean drinking water, latrines or medical facilities, among other things. The
workers were also subject to respiratory infections due to the pollution generated by stone
crushers. There also existed an illegal system of thekedars or middlemen who extracted a large
percentage of wages from the workmen as commission. The Petitioner, on behalf of these
workmen, addressed a letter to the Court invoking the jurisdiction of Article 32 of the
Constitution and sought reliefs for, among other things, reduction in air pollution, clean and
potable drinking water, conservancy facilities, medical facilities and compensation. The Supreme
Court treated it as public interest litigation and appointed a commission for inquiry into the
Petitioner’s allegations. The Respondent-Government challenged the petition on the ground that
it was not procedurally in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Code of Civil
Procedure.

Legal Principles Involved

The legal principles or the law involved in this case are:
 ● Bonded Labour System Act, 1976
● Mines Rules, 1955
● Mines Vocational Training Rules, 1966
● Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
● Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
● Article 23 (1) of the Indian Constitution
● Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

Facts of the Case

The main issues are concerned with the majority of workers who were compelled to migrate
from other states, and turned into bonded laborers. It deals with the existence of bonded labor in
the Faridabad stone quarries near the city of Delhi. The workers were facing miserable life and
were dealing with sub-human conditions. A violation of various labor laws and the Bonded
Labor System (Abolition) Act 1976 was alleged.

1. The Petitioner, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, is an organization dedicated to the cause of release of
bonded labor; conducted a survey of some of the stone quarries in Faridabad district near the
City of Delhi.

2. On the basis of that survey, the petitioner addressed a letter to Hon'ble Justice Bhagwati on
25th February 1982 alleging that a large number of bonded laborers worked in inhuman and
intolerable conditions in stone quarries and mines situated in Faridabad, Haryana.

3. It prayed for the prayer implementation of the Mines Act, 1952, Bonded Labor System
Abolition Act, 1976, Minimum Wages Act, among others.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution and on 26th February 1982 appointed Commission consisting of Mr. Ashok
Srivastava and Mr. Ashok Pandey to enquire into the allegations made by the petitioner.
5. The Commission while confirming the allegations made by the Petitioner, pointed out in its
report dated 2nd March 1982 that:

● The whole atmosphere in the alleged stone quarries was full of dust and it was difficult
for anyone to breathe.
● Some of the workmen were not allotted to leave the stone quarries and were providing
forced labor.
● There was no facility of providing clean drinking water.
● The laborers did not have proper houses, instead they were living in jhuggies made of
piled stones and straw.
● No compensation was paid to laborers who were injured in accidents occurring in the
course of their employment.
● There was no facility for medical treatment or schooling.

6. At the direction of the Apex Court, a socio-legal investigation was also carried out by Dr.
Patwardhan.

Issues Under Consideration

1. Whether the letter addressed to the court is to be referred to as a writ petition?

2. Whether any fundamental right of the workmen referred to in the petition is infringed so as to
attract Article 32 of the Constitution?

3. Whether or not the Supreme Court is empowered to appoint any Commission or investigating
body under Article 32 of the Constitution?

4. Whether or not the workmen in the present case are bonded laborers?

5. Whether or not the workmen in the present case are entitled to benefits under various social
welfare and labor law legislation?
Arguments Advanced:

Petitioner’s contention –

● The entire environment in the supposed stone quarries was loaded with residue and it
was difficult for anyone to inhale;

● A portion of the laborers was not permitted to leave the stone quarries and was giving
constrained work; 

● There was no facility of giving unadulterated water to drink and the workers were
constrained to drink messy water from a nullah;

● The workers were not having a safe house in any case, they were living in jhuggies
which was excessively low to stand.

● Also, a portion of the workers were suffering from constant illnesses; no pay was
being paid to workers who were harmed because of mishaps emerging in the course of
work;

● There were no offices for medicinal treatment or tutoring.

Respondent’s contention –

The respondents contended:

● That the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioner has no locus standi. A letter addressed by a party to the Court cannot be
treated as a writ petition. In the absence of a verified petition the Apex Court cannot be
moved to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

● That even if the allegations made by the Petitioner in the letter dated 25 th February 1982
are true, it still cannot support a writ petition under Article 32. No fundamental right of
the petitioner or of the workmen on whose behalf the petition is filed is infringed.

● That the Supreme Court does not have power to appoint a Commission. The Commission
appointed in the present matter are beyond the scope of Order XLVI of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966 and therefore no reliance can be placed on the said reports. Reports
 submitted by Commissioners are based only upon ex parte statements which have not
been tested by cross examination. The said reports, therefore, have no evidentiary value.

● That the labourers in stone quarries and stone crushers might be forced labourers, but
they are not bonded labourers within the meaning of the Bonded Labour System
(Abolition) Act, 1976. Under the above mentioned Act, a labourer would be a bonded
labourer only if he has or is presumed to have incurred a bonded debt. There is nothing in
the present case to show that the labourers employed in the stone quarries and stone
crushers has incurred or could be presumed to have incurred any bonded debt. It is not
sufficient to merely show that the labourers were providing forced labour in as much as
they were not being allowed to leave the premises. Even if the workmen filed affidavits
to the effect that they had taken advances from the thekedar or mine lessees or the stone
crusher owners and they were not being allowed to leave the premises of the
establishment until the advances were paid off, that would not be enough evidence for
them to be declared bonded labourers, because the mine lessees and stone crusher owners
had no opportunity to cross-examine the workmen making such affidavits.

● That the workmen employed in the stone quarries and stone crushers were coming to join
the service in the stone quarries of their own volition and they were not recruited by any
agent for being migrated from any State and so they did not come under the definition of
the term ‘Inter-state Migrant Workmen’. The application of the Mines Act, 1952;
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and other basic amenities such as clean drinking water and
sanitation not disputed.

Judgment
The SC stated that for a labor to be regarded as bonded labor, he must be forced to provide labor
to the employer and also he must have received an advance or other economic consideration
from the employer, unless he is made to provide forced labor in pursuance of any custom or
social obligation or by reason of his birth in any particular caste or community. Whenever it is
shown that a laborer is made to provide forced labor, the court would raise a presumption that he
is satisfying the criteria set for to be recognized as bonded labor. But unless and until satisfactory
evidence is produced for rebutting this presumption the court must proceed on the basis that the
laborer is a bonded laborer entitle to the benefit under the provision of the Bonded Labor System
(Abolition) Act, 1976. The courts also recognized the right of bonded laborers to live with
human dignity. It read the Directive Principles of State Policy into Article 21 of the constitution
to make the right to live with human dignity fruitful to the working class of the country. The
stand in the Asiad case was reiterated that the state is under a constitutional obligation to see that
there is no violation of any fundamental rights of person, specifically when the person belongs to
the weaker section of the society and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and
powerful member of the society who is exploiting him. It is the duty of central government to
ensure the regulation of social welfare and labor laws enacted by the parliament for the purpose
of securing to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the Directive
Principles of State Policy.

The Court held that-

1. Whenever any person is wrongfully or illegally denied and deprived of his liberty, it is
open for that person to move to this court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
for his release.
2. On the issue of procedural infirmities, the Court held that in the instant case, a letter
could be treated as a writ petition under Article 32. The Court held that in matters of
public interest, when the oppressed are unable to afford legal aid, procedural flexibility
should be permitted. It was observed that in the Judges Appointment and Transfer
Case the Supreme Court took the view that where a person or class of persons to whom
legal injury is caused by reason of violation of a fundamental right is unable to approach
the court for judicial redress on account of poverty or disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position, any member of the public acting bona fide can
move the Court under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution, so that the
fundamental rights become meaningful not only for the rich and the resourceful but also
for the masses who are living a life of destitution, lack of awareness and resources.
3. Although under Article 32, the right to move the Honorable Supreme Court by an
appropriate proceeding is guaranteed, the Article 32 or any other provision of the
Constitution of India does not lay down any specific procedure to be followed by this
Court. Procedural laws also form a part of the law and have to be observed but are
 however, subservient to the substantive law. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution are too sacred and important to be ignored, merely on the basis of technical
grounds of the procedural laws. Therefore, if the court is satisfied by the material placed
before it, be it in any form, including a letter or any other type of communication, it may
take notice of the same as a writ petition.
4. The Court further observed that Article 32(2) of the Constitution of India empowers the
Court to make any directions, writs or orders for the prevention of the fundamental rights
of every individual. The Hon’ble Court found the article presented before it is sufficiently
wide enough to appoint the fact-finding commission as well as to appoint lawyers for the
poor and oppressed who are not in the financial situation to stand for their rights and fight
for them.
5. In response to the argument raised by the Respondent that there has been no infringement
of any fundamental right, the Apex Court said that when a public interest litigation is
initiated alleging that certain workmen are living in bondage and under inhuman
conditions, it is not expected of the government to raise such preliminary objections.
Instead, the Government should welcome an inquiry by the Court, so that it can be found
if there are workers living in bondage or otherwise providing forced labour, and the
Government can set right such a situation. A public interest litigation is not in the nature
of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the Government to make
basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community.
6. It was stated that The State Government cannot be permitted to repudiate its obligation to
identify, release and rehabilitate the bonded labourers on the plea that though the
concerned labourers may be providing forced labour, the State Government does not owe
any obligation to them, unless and until they show in an appropriate legal proceeding
concluded according to the rules of adversary system of justice, that they are bonded
labourers.
7. On the issue of air pollution at the mines the Court held that the Central Government and
the State of Haryana should take steps to ensure that it is reduced. The Court took note of
the fact that workmen were subjected to infections like tuberculosis due to the constant
presence of dust. Thus the Court suggested one of two measures to be adopted in this
regard-a continuous spraying of water over the stone crusher or the installation of a dust
 sucking machine. The Court directed the Central Government and the State of Haryana to
comply with these suggestions and submit a report.
8. As to whether the Respondent Government was obliged to provide clean drinking water
to the workmen, the Court held in the affirmative. The Court held that the Mines Act
1952 provided that mine-lessees and stone crusher owners shall make effective
arrangements for providing and maintaining at suitable points conveniently situated a
sufficient supply of cool and wholesome drinking water for all workmen. Thus the Court
directed the Respondent Government to provide clean drinking water, the purity of which
should be on a scale of two litres for every person employed. The water had to be stored
in hygienic containers to be cleaned and refilled everyday and kept at accessible and
shady areas. The containers would be looked after by women and children who would be
paid a minimum wage for it. The Respondent Government was also directed to order the
mine owners to obtain tankers of water from an unpolluted source and supply it to the
workmen at frequent intervals
9. On the issue of lack of conservancy facilities, the Court directed the Respondent
Government to install separate latrines and urinals for men and women in accordance
with the Mines Act 1952. The mine owners were to ensure that the latrines were to be in
sanitary conditions and adequate in number, with a continuous supply of water.
10. As to whether medical facilities and first aid should be provided to the workers the Court
held in the affirmative. The Court held that the provisions governing health and safety of
workers in the Mines Act, 1952 and Mines Rules 1955 are applicable. Thus the Court
directed the Respondent Government to immediately provide adequate medical facilities
to the workers. Moreover, workers required to blast explosives were to be trained under
the Mines Vocational Training Rules 1966 and be qualified in first aid. The Court held
that families of workmen were entitled to medical aid and reimbursement of expenses in
that regard. In case of injuries suffered at the workplace, the workmen and/or their
families were to be hospitalized at the expense of the mine owners.
11. On the issue of compensation due to injuries or diseases suffered at the workplace, the
Court held that the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 would prevail.
The Court held that concerned Inspecting Officer would render legal assistance to the
victim to file his or her claim before the appropriate court. The Court held that the lower
 court should dispose of the medical claim at the earliest. The Court held that the
Respondent Government should visit the mines every fortnight to check whether the
workmen are infected by injury or disease. If so, the Government was directed to provide
medical and legal assistance to them.
12. The Court appointed a Commissioner from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India
to ensure that the Government was carrying out the directions as laid down by the Court.
13. Lastly, the Court pointed out that there are many rights conferred on the people who
belong to the backward sections of the society, by statute, which are required to be
enforced as urgently and vigorously as the fundamental rights.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the Honorable Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

The aggrieved party need not always necessarily be the one to file a petition, but any person with
a bonafide intention may file a case in order to protect the rights of others and when it comes to
the public interest or for the welfare of the common people, a mere letter can also be treated as a
writ petition.
Conclusion
The word ‘locus standi’ means ‘ what is your standing the in case’.The present case, a Public
Interest Litigation case, was filed by the petitioner, who, directed wasn’t related to the case but
had a standing in the case, as he stood to help the people who could not help themselves.

The concept of helping and standing for the interest of others first came in the United States
where Social Interest Litigation was formed to help the poor and the helpless. The formation of
the Social Interest Litigation gave a view to India to incorporate something of the same concept
and so, the birth of Public Interest Litigation took place.

In my humble opinion, the judgment delivered by the three-judge bench of the Honourable
Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Bhagwati, Justice Sen and Justice Pathak was correct.
Treating a mere letter as a writ petition was entirely appropriate, so as to immediately act upon
the problem. Also, the filing of case by the organization in stead of the aggrieved party is also
correct as the aggrieved party didn’t have enough resources to file and contest their case. the
direction to the Government of Haryana to instruct the District Magistrates to take up the work
of identification of bonded labour as one of its top priority tasks, to map out areas of
concentration of bonded labour which are mostly to be found in stone quarries and brick kilns,
and to assign task forces for identification and release of bonded labour, was an entirely welcome
step. To conclude, it can be said that the overall judgment was a landmark decision, and
completely suited the needs of the situation.
Bibliography

Books referred:

Paul, Meenu. Labour and Industrial Laws. Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2020.

Websites referred:

● www.scconline.com accessed on 10th December 2020 at 11:52 am.

● https://www.educentric.in/blog-details.html?id=319&blog=case%20summary%20on
%20bandhua%20mukti%20morcha%20v.%20union%20of%20india accessed on 10th
December 2020 at 10:15 am.
● https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-bandhua-mukti-morcha-v-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors/
accessed on 10th December 2020 at 11:13 am.
● https://indianlegalsolution.com/bandhua-mukti-morcha-v-union-of-india/ accessed on 10th
December 2020 at 09:45 am.
● http://lawtimesjournal.in/bandhua-mukti-morcha-vs-union-of-india-ors/ accessed on 10th
December 2020 at 12:01 pm.