SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(SC) 116

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra, CJI., M.M.Punchhi, S.C.Agrawal, JJ.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha
Versus
Union Of India
Case No., 2135 of 1982
Date of Decision, 2/21/91

Headnote:

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 – Section,13 - Investigation - National Labour - Court gave certain directions and appointed Commissioner to investigate and submit a report to court keeping directives in view- Subsequently on a petition for contempt at instance of petitioner Dr Jain of Faculty of National Institute was appointed to inquire into measures and report on extent which court directives had been implemented and to present to court a clear picture of issues involved for enabling court to make necessary assessment and reach its conclusion as to whether directions were being implemented and as to whether it was appropriate or matter monitoring problems some other course was necessary to be adopted has also given his report judgment delivered did not conclude matter and court intended monitoring subsequent steps court heard matter in appearing on behalf of persons said to be freed bonded supplied a list of such persons from Faridabad quarries who according to him required rehabilitation in terms of scheme for freed bonded - Registry pointed out that list was not complete sense that did not bear consecutive numbers and counsel for petitioner had been called upon to rectify defect directed to deposit in registry a sum within three weeks hence to meet expenses of Committee- An ambassador car may be placed at disposal Committee as and when required- Payment if any to unofficial members of Committee shall be decided by court after receipt of report- Haryana officer shall act as Convener of Committee and be responsible for arrangements –Held, Committee shall immediately be set up with Director General Welfare of Union government or a very senior officer from his establishment Chief Judicial Magistrate Faridabad an advocate of Supreme court with social service background an officer from Haryana government not below rank of Additional District Commissioner and Swami representing petitioner or his nominee advocate appearing for brick kiln owners would be permitted to associate in activities of Committee shall within six weeks from now check up particulars provided in list by petitioner identify persons claimed to have been bonded and collect all relevant material in respect of them so as to assist this court to make further directions in terms of requirement of scheme to rehabilitate them- In course of their movement for purpose of complying with this order if fresh cases of bonded are noticed by them they would collect particulars separately and report to court – Order accordingly

(1) THIS court by the judgment dated 16/12/1983 disposed of the main matter. By the judgment the court gave certain directions and appointed Mr Lakshmidhar Misra, the then central Labour Commissioner to investigate and submit a report to the court keeping the 21 directives in view. Subsequently, on a petition for contempt at the instance of the petitioner, Dr Jain of the Faculty of the National Labour Institute was appointed to inquire into the measures and report on the extent, to which the court directives had been implemented and to present to the court a clear picture of the issues involved for enabling the court to make necessary assessment and reach its conclusion as to whether the directions were being implemented, and as to whether it was appropriate or in the matter of monitoring the problems, some other course was necessary to be adopted. Dr Jain has also given his report.

(2) SINCE the judgment delivered in December 1983 did not conclude the matter and the court intended monitoring the subsequent steps, we heard the matter in July 1990. Swami Agnivesh appearing on behalf of the persons said to be freed bonded labour, supplied a list of such persons from the Faridabad quarries who, according to him, required rehabilitation in terms of the scheme for freed bonded labour. The Registry pointed out that the list was not complete in the sense that it did not bear consecutive numbers and counsel for the petitioner had been called upon to rectify .the defect. We do not find any adequate response from him. In due course, a .letter came from the Director General, Labour Welfare in the Ministry of Labour dated 24/01/1991, wherein the relevant aspect was dealt with thus:

"... as per the report received from the office of the Finance Commissioner and secretary to the government of Haryana, 544 bonded labourers were detected and identified in that State as on 30/11/1990. All these bonded labourers were stated to have been rehabilitated except 124 who left on their own, 96 were not willing to go back/two expired due to natural death:

IT was further stated by the government of Haryana that for identification of bonded labour, Vigilance Committees at each district and sub-divisional levels have been constituted in accordance with S. 13 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Out of these 544 bonded labourers, none is stated to belong to the State of Haryana. I am also enclosing a statement containing statistical information of bonded labourers, identified and rehabilitated as on 31/12/1990. According to this information, the number of bonded labourers identified in Haryana State is 544 out of which 21 are stated to have been rehabilitated and the rest 523 are stated to be not available for rehabilitation."

The enclosed statement in respect of Haryana indicated the number of bonded labourers identified to be 544 out of which number of bonded labourers rehabilitated is 21 as on 30/11/1990, and the balance figure was shown as 523. There is a wide gap between the figure indi- cated on behalf of the petitioner and what has been shown in the letter dated 24/01/1991 .referred to above.

(3) THIS matter was, therefore, placed for directions and counsel for the parties have again been heard. They have suggested that the exact number should be determined and the persons should be identified so that with reference to that number directions for rehabilitation may be given. An apprehension has been indicated that if the matter is left to the State government with no definite details, particularly when the State Government has disclosed a smaller number, the benefit contemplated by the scheme and the courts order would not be available and monitor- ing would not be effective.

(4) WITH a view to meeting the situation, we direct that a Committee shall immediately be set up with Director General, Labour Welfare of the Union government or a very senior officer from his establishment, the Chief Judicial M



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top