Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4433
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Mrs. M. Pachiyammal
Versus
The District Collector, Salem District & Others
H.C.P. No.1788 of 2010
Decided On : 06-10-2010
For the Petitioner:D. Dhayalan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The court has the power to order the release of individuals held as bonded labourers and to direct further investigation and rehabilitation measures.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Bonded Labour - The court ordered the release of the detenus who were allegedly kept as bonded labourers and not paid wages. The police were directed to continue the investigation and file a charge sheet, and the District Collector was directed to enquire into the matter and pass suitable orders for rehabilitation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that several individuals were taken for stone breaking work, kept as bonded labourers, and not paid wages.
Finding of the Court:
The detenus were present before the court, and all except one were set at liberty. The police were directed to continue the investigation, and the District Collector was directed to enquire into the matter and pass suitable orders for rehabilitation.
Issues: Alleged bonded labour, non-payment of wages, and restriction of movement of the detenus.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ordered the release of the detenus and directed the police to continue the investigation and the District Collector to enquire into the matter and pass suitable orders for rehabilitation.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
1. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one M. Pachiyammal has brought forth this petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the detenus namely (1) Mani, petitioners husband and the petitioner co-worker (2) Thangaraj and his wife (3) Chinnapillai, their daughter (4) Kasturi and their son (5) Murali, (6) Ayyanar and his wife (7)Perumayi (8) Manikandan and his wife (9) Eswari (10) Ayyandurai and his wife (11) Nithya were all taken for the work of stone breaking by the sixth respondent, quarry owner, but they have not been paid wages and they have been kept as bonded labourers and they were not allowed to go outside. Under the circumstances, a complaint has been sent to respondents 1 to 3 on 4.9.2010 through registered post, but no action has been taken. Hence this application has been brought forth by the petitioner.
2. In response to the above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the State that a case was registered in Crime No.16 of 2010 on the complaint given by the petitioner against sixth respondent and three others. Investigation is on. The statement of the respondent-police is also recorded.
3. This day, all the detenus are present before this Court, except one Kasturi since she is not well, and all the detenus are set at liberty. However, this order will not stand in the way of the respondent-police to proceed with the investigation in the above crime number as one required under law and file a charge sheet before the concerned Court.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a representation has already been given to the District Collector, who is the first respondent herein. According to the learned counsel, the detenus have got to be given sufficient rehabilitation and the same has got to be ordered. In such circumstances, a direction has got to be given to the first respondent to enquire into the matter and pass suitable orders thereon. The Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
