People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India

INTRODUCTION

   People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India is a notable legal case that took place in the Indian judicial system. The case involves People’s Union for Democratic Rights parties as appellants, and Union of India and Others as the respondent. This case relates to the Public Interest Litigation, in which there is violation of various labour laws being related to working labours in the construction site associated to Asian Games like Constitution of India, 1950.

FACTS OF THE CASE

                      In this instance, child labourers working in Delhi’s construction industry filed a complaint alleging a breach of Article 24 of the constitution, which forbids placing minors under the age of 14 in dangerous jobs. Additionally, laborers from underdeveloped villages in Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan were hired by agents of construction firms to work on the ASIAD-82 sites on both the stadiums and the infrastructure, including as flyovers and hotels. Due to poor living conditions in hovels, the fact that their children were dying of starvation, and the fact that they themselves frequently had accidents, these workers were forced to work at a feverish pace and frequently past the legal working hours without receiving the daily minimum wage to be pushed to finish the ASIAD projects by November 19. A fact-finding team from the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) visited some of the major sites in July and August 1981 and spoke with both the workers and their employers, bringing to light the appalling living and working conditions these workers were forced to endure.

Following this, on November 16, 1981, the People’s Union for Democratic Rights filed a writ petition via PIL with the Supreme Court to demand that the provisions of various labour laws be observed in relation to the workers employed in the ASIAD-82 projects’ construction work. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice Baharul Islam instructed the Union Government, the Delhi Development Authority, and the Delhi Administration—the three organizations that had chosen the contractors for the ASIAD construction work—to ensure the payment of the minimum wage and the provision of other benefits to the workers in accordance with the relevant laws after admitting the writ petition in May 1982. For the first time in India’s judicial history, the judges also appointed three ombudsmen (experienced individuals permitted to look into and make decisions about complaints of citizens against public officials) to protect the interests of the workforce and guarantee the adherence of the law. They were asked to go to the main building sites and provide the Supreme Court with weekly updates.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Can the writ petition against a private person be maintained in accordance with Article-32 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution include the right to a livelihood and the right to live in dignity?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

• The petitioner’s argument was that various authorities charged with carrying out the various projects hired contractors to complete the projects’ construction work who were registered as principal employers in accordance with section 7 of the Contract Labour Act of 1970. These contractors obtained workers from “Jamadars,” who transported them from different regions of India. Additionally, the Minimum Wages Act was broken because the minimum wages were paid to these jamadars rather than the workers directly.
• It was also argued that the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976 was broken because women workers were only paid Rs. 71 per day while the Jamadars misappropriated the remaining money.
• The Employment of Children Acts, 1938 and 1970, as well as Article 24 of the Indian Constitution were broken since the contractors hired children under the age of 14 to work on the various projects’ construction.
• The Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act of 1970 was violated because the workers’ access to medical care and other benefits was denied to them in breach of the Act’s requirements.
• The Contractors also broke the terms of the Inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, which went into effect on October 2, 1980, in the Union Territory of Delhi.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

• The respondent argued that the petitioners lacked standing to file the writ petition since their rights had not been violated; nonetheless, the issue at hand concerns the rights of the employees employed in various construction projects. Therefore, the petitioners were unable to assert any claim.
• It was also asserted that the workers whose rights were allegedly violated belonged to the contractors rather than the respondents. Additionally, since any claims made by the workers would be against the contractors rather than the respondents, no writ petition could be filed against them.
•  The respondent further asserted, as part of this preliminary objection, that no writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution could be filed against the respondents for the alleged violations of the rights of the workers under the various labour laws and that the only available legal recourse, if any, was provided by those laws.

JUDGEMENT

                    By its ruling, the court upheld a poor worker’s right to petition the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to have their rights enforced under various labour laws, in particular the provisions of the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970, the Interstate Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act of 1977, the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976, the Employment of Children Act of 1970, and the Minimum Wages Act. The Supreme Court expanded the definition of what article 21 of the Constitution (the right to life) means to include the “right to live with basic human dignity” as well as the right to a means of subsistence.

The provisions of Articles 21, 17, and 23 of the Constitution have also been given a broader interpretation to embrace situations where workers are not paid the full number of wages to which they are legally entitled. The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the purview and application of Article 23. The Court ruled that Article 23’s reach is broad and unrestricted, targeting “human trafficking” and “beggar and other forms of forced labour” wherever they may be found. Article 23 forbids all forms of forced labour, not just “beggar” work. This Article condemns forced labour in all its manifestations. Strikes so also violate Article 21. The government and its agencies are under a solemn constitutional obligation, according to the court, to ensure that the various laws are correctly applied—not just by the government itself, but also by individuals or non-governmental organizations. “Bonded labour” and “forced labour,” as defined in Article 21 to “the right to live with human dignity,” were terms utilized by the Supreme Court. The rights and benefits that employees are entitled to under various labour laws have been elevated to the rank of Fundamental Rights and constituted a fundamental component of basic human dignity.

CONCLUSION

                           The Supreme Court has, in my judgment, once again demonstrated its role as the protector and guarantor of the fundamental rights of every citizen of every nation. First of all, it has dispelled the myth that public interest litigation unnecessarily clogs the Court’s files and adds to the already staggering backlog of cases that are pending and has for the first time held that the Court’s doors are being opened to the poor. This myth is held by some lawyers, journalists, and men in public life. The courts are being exposed to problems facing the downtrodden, ignorant, and illiterate people through public interest litigation.

REFERENCE

1. https://indiankanoon.org

This Article is written by Prazzal Mohanty student of SOA National Institute of Law; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin