IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on 11.11.2025 Sarita . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Sachin Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to get detenues mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the petition, released from the illegal custody of respondents No 4 to 6.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue, namely Rahul, son of Kanwat Pal, aged about 35 years, was contacted by respondents No. 4 to 6 in the third week of October 2025 and was lured to work as a mason at a brick kiln situated in Village Sisana, District Sonepat, Haryana, on the assurance of being paid ₹35,500/- per month along with commission of ₹50/- per thousand kachha bricks, and adequate provision for basic amenities. However, after detenue reached the brick kiln, respondents failed to pay the assured amount and instead offered only ₹18,000/- per month. When detenue refused to work for the reduced wages and expressed his desire to return to his native place at District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, respondents wrongfully confined him at the worksite and are not allowing him to leave. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that immediate directions be issued to rescue the detenue from the illegal custody of respondents No. 4 to 6 and to ensure his safe return to his native place.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he will be satisfied in case respondent No.1, who is the competent authority in terms of Section 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1976') is directed to take decision in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Murti v. State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 32 of 2013, decided on 11.01.2013). The relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus:

“It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent Nos.5 to 7 are being kept as bonded labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean that the allegations levelled by the appellant have been accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the provisions of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and set-aside/modify the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition.”

4. A further reference is also made to the order passed in the case of Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CRWP No. 4666 of

2020, decided on 08.07.2020), which reads thus:

“Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Fazilka to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a