IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP-13273-2025 Decided on: December 08, 2025 Sajida ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. The 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 detenue mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the petition, released from the illegal custody of respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner as well as the other detenue so mentioned in the petition had been engaged by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 on 09.09.2025 to work as labourers in the brick kiln owned and operated by the said respondents and that the labourers were to be paid at the rate of Rs. 232/- per 1000 bricks. He contends that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 made the agreed payment only for a week and thereafter stopped balance amount of Rs.95,000/- and started taking forcible work from the petitioner and his family members, with the help of their musclemen hired by them.

Despite the amount being overdue, the petitioner as well as the other detenue are not being paid their dues and that the detenue have been illegally detained.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Jhajjar, 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.4 & 5 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 period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.”

5. In view of the above, the i