Bandhua Mukti Morcha VS Union of India

Union of India worked together to end bonded labour practices

1. Case study on Bandhua Makti Morcha vs Union of India Industrial relations assessment BY- Riddhi goyanka (23, shift 2)

2. OUTLINE About Bandhua Mukti Morcha Case Background/ Facts Issues Judgement Reasoning for the Judgement Legal Principles Comment

3. Swami Agnivesh Said "We must not rest until right livelihood is within reach of every human being upon this earth we love and cherish. We all have a role to play in achieving this goal."

4. About bandhua mukti morcha The Bonded Labor Liberation Front (BLLF) or Bandhua Mukti Morcha (BMM) is a non-governmental organization working to end bonded labor in India. It was founded in 1981 by Swami Agnivesh, based in New Delhi, who continued as its chairman until his death in 2020. In India in 1976, bonded labor was legally abolished but remains prevalent, with poor implementation by state governments of the law. Estimates of the issue differ. Official figures include an estimate of 251,000 bonded workers in 1993, while BMM says 20 to 65 million bonded workers exist.

5. Facts •Bandhua Mukti Morcha, a petitioner, is an NGO devoted to the welfare of workers. •The petitioner discovered some stone quarries in Faridabad near the city of Delhi when conducting a survey, where there were extreme workers' situations, as they were forced to come and work from different states of the country and their health became poorer and poorer day by day due to extremely polluted working conditions. •On the basis of the survey, on 25 February 1982, the petitioner wrote a letter to Justice Bhagwati stating: These mines belong to Shri S. L. Sharma in the district of Faridabad, Haryana. They were large numbers of workers from various states of the country, working under conditions that were cruel and intolerable. They were mainly bonded, labourers. The laws relating to workers' welfare have not been applied. The petitioner also specified the employee's details and prayed that a letter is provided for the proper enforcement of the various provisions of social welfare legislation, such as the 1952 Mining Act, the 1970 Contract Labor Act, etc.

6. Facts By Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the court viewed the letter as a written petition and named on 26 February 1982 a commission consisting of Mr Ashok Shrivastav and Mr Ashok Panda to investigate the petitioner's allegations. The Commission, in its report dated 2 March 1982, proved the allegations correct, as follows: The environment in the stone quarries was full of dust and it was difficult for anyone to breathe. Some of the workers were not allowed to leave the stone quarries. There was no facility for providing drinking water to the workmen. The labourer does not have proper shelter, they were living in Jhuggis made of piled stones and straws. There was no proper compensation given to the labourer who was injured in an accident while working. There was no medical facilities or schooling available to their children.

7. Whether writ petition filed under art 32 of the constitution is valid in nature or not?  Whether any fundamental right of the worker was actually violated or not?  Issues Whether Supreme Court is empowered to appoint any commission or investigating body under article 32 of the constitution or not?   Whether the workmen mentioned in the present case are bonded labor or not?   Whether workmen in the present case entitled to relief under various social welfare and labor legislations or not?

8. Judgement The Supreme Court found the petition to be valid and therefore issued the following instructions to the Haryana government, the central government and other administrative authorities: • To ensure compliance under Section 13 of the Bonded Labor Act, 1976, the government of Haryana shall constitute a vigilance committee in each district division within 6 weeks of the judgement. •A district magistrate will be appointed by the government of Haryana to recognize bonded labor in compliance with the law. •To ensure the implementation of the Bonded Labor Act, 1976, the state government must also assist NGOs and other voluntary agencies. •The Haryana government must re-habit the bonded employees within 3 months of the judgement. •The enforcement of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, must be ensured by both the central and state governments. •The central government offices concerned shall perform surprise visits at least once a week. •Camps are also arranged by the Central Board of Workers' Education to teach workers about their rights and benefits offered by law.

9. Reasoning for the Judgement On the question of procedural disability, the court held that a letter could be considered as a written petition according to Article 32 in the present case. The court held that where the oppressed parties are unable to afford legal assistance in matters of public concern, procedural flexibility is required. On the issue of the violation of fundamental rights, the court held that it violated their rights under Article 21 to survive in need of proper water and the environment. On the question of the power of the Supreme Court to appoint a commission under Article 32, it is specified that the Court can appoint any commission in cases where the public interest and public welfare are required. The Supreme Court held that it was valid and also directed by the government of Haryana to ensure the revocation of such bonded workers on the issue of bonded labour . On the issue of workers entitled to such social security and legal aid relief, the Supreme Court found it correct and guided all mine owners to provide workers with sufficient medical, education and drinking water facilities.

10. Bonded labor system act, 1976 Maternity Benefit act 1961 Mines Rule 1955 Article 32 of Indian Constitution Mines Vocational Training Rules 1966 Legal Principles

11. Comments In my view, the judgment delivered by the three Supreme Court bench judges, including Justice Bhagwati, Justice Sen, and Justice Pathak was correct. As treating mere a letter as the writ was correct as to immediately act upon the problem. Also, the filling of the case by the other party in place of the aggrieved party is correct as the aggrieved party doesn't have enough resources to file the case and fight their case. As they are already sacrificing to survive in this world and then to afford the extra load of paying the legal fees was not possible for them. Also, the making of a separate committee under central labor ministry as to check the implementation of central laws related to laborers such as Mines Act, Vocational Training Act and so on. In end, it can be said that the overall judgment it can be said that the judgment was appropriate and as per the situation demanded.

12. Photos

13. Reference

14. Questions?