Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Sumitra - Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 12499 of 2023
Decided On : 22-09-2023
Mr. Atul Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh and Mr. P. Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Udit Malik, ASC, for GNCTD.
Ms. Nandita Rao and Mr. Kunal, Advocates, for the Respondents.
IMPORTANT POINT
The Bonded Labour Act requires the presence of a bonded debt or social obligation compelling labour for its application.
Headnote:
Bonded Labour Act - Petitioner's claim rejected - Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2(g
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner and her late husband claimed to be bonded labourers and sought financial assistance under the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourer, 2016. The SDM rejected their claim, leading to the Petitioner's appeal to the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was no evidence of the Petitioner and her late husband being forced to work due to a debt owed to the Respondent. The SDM's detailed examination led to the conclusion that the complaints may have been filed with ulterior motives.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner and her late husband qualified as bonded labourers under the Bonded Labour Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Bonded Labour Act requires the existence of a debt or social obligation forcing labour, which was not established in this case.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and pending applications were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the enquiry report dated 02.05.2023, issued by the SDM, Narela, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and her late husband that they are bonded labourers and, therefore, they are entitled to financial assistance under the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourer, 2016.
2. It is stated that the Petitioner and her late husband - Dhanik Lal, came to Delhi in 1989. It is stated that the Petitioner's husband worked as a Raj Mistry for about ten years and in 1999 they started working as construction workers in Budh Vihar, Delhi where a school was being constructed by the Respondent No.3 herein/Mr. Ashok Kumar. It is stated that in 2000 the Petitioner and her husband were forced by Respondent No.3 and his son to work at their farm house situated at Khasra No.66/17, Village Lampur, Near Ghoga Shamsan, Delhi. It is stated that they were given some portion of land to live in the farm house and were also promised some part of the cultivated crops for their sustenance and in return they were asked to work at the agricultural field of Respondent No.3 and to take care of the farm house and the cattle in it. It is stated that despite earning Rs.5 Lakhs from the agricultural produce, Respondent No.3 didn't use to pay any wages to the Petitioner and her late husband. It is stated that for the past 23 years the Petitioner and her late husband have not been paid any wages by the Respondent No.3. It is stated that in 2019 complaints were given by the Petitioner and her late husband to various authorities stating that they have been kept as bonded labours.
3. It is stated that the Petitioner and her late husband approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 1101/2020 seeking directions for issuance of release certificate, interim relief amount, for conducting summary trial, for recovery of earn wages and for their rehabilitation. This Court vide Order dated 29.10.2020 directed the Respondents therein to treat the said Writ Petition as a representation and pass appropriate orders. It is stated that when the said Order was not complied with, the Petitioner herein filed a contempt petition against the District Magistrate, North Delhi. It is stated that after the intervention of this Court, financial assistance of Rs.20,000/- was provided to the Petitioner and her husband and a fresh enquiry was ordered to be conducted. It is stated that vide Enquiry Report dated 07.09.2022, the SDM, Narela, rejected the claim of the Petitioner and her husband that they are bonded labourers. It is stated that the Petitioner's husband passed away on 28.12.2022. It is stated that in the contempt proceedings initiated by the late husband of the Petitioner herein, the SDM, Narela, was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry and submit its report within two months.
4. It is stated that on 02.05.2023, an enquiry report was submitted by the SDM, Narela, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner and her late husband cannot be covered under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bonded Labour Act') and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits under the Act. Aggrieved by the said enquiry report, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Heard the Counsels and perused the material on record.
6. The Bonded Labour Act was brought in to abolish the bonded labour system and to prevent the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker sections of the people. It was found that in different parts of the country a system of usury exists under which the debtor or his descendants or dependants have to work for the creditor without reasonable wages or with no wages in order to extinguish the existing debt. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reveals that at times several generations worked under bondage for repayment of a paltry sum which had been taken by some remote ancestor. In order to get over this situation, the Bonded Labour Act was brought in. Re
