Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union Of India & Ors.(1984 AIR 802), Eliminate the use of child labours under the age of 14

INTRODUCTION :

Name Of The Case : Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union Of  India & Ors. (1984)

Equivalent Citation : 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

Court : Supreme Court of India

Bench : Bhagwati, P.N. Pathak, R.S. Sen, Amarendra Nath (J)

Petitioner : Bandhua Mukti Morcha

The entire Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. The case is a noteworthy instance in bonded labor in the history of our country. In 1976, the Bonded Labor (Abolition) Act was signed into law. The unambiguous obligation of Article 21 of the constitution is the recognition, discharge, and adequate reintegration of bonded individuals. To preserve the dignity and worth of bonded laborers, the Act was authorized underneath the legislature’s Directive Principles of State Policy. A violation of the Constitution’s Article 21, however, would ensue if the Indian government is willing not to step in.

One of the historical verdicts addressing the poor and worsening conditions of Bonded labor in Developing countries is Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India and Ors. Bandhua Mukti Morcha, a philanthropic non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting human wellbeing and is mannered to the aim of the emancipation of bonded employees in the sovereign country, is the petitioner.

FACTS OF THE CASE :

The Bandhua Mukti Morcha, a humanitarian association, filed the petition after inspecting many stone crushers in the Faridabad district, close to Delhi, and finding that many of the workers from Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra were in dire straits. The petitioners submitted an application to the Honorable Judge P. N. Bhagwati on February 25, 1982.

The letter provided the names of 11 Rajasthan employees, 30 Madhya Pradesh employees, 14 Uttar Pradesh employees, and their declarations demonstrating their vulnerability. Alongside from jailed labor, the letter focused on fatal injuries, occupational respiratory sickness, and stone dust, respectively. It also mentioned dirty drinking water, inadequate sanitation, low pay, and sexual exploitation of women, all of which are enough to make workers’ lives miserable. The petitioner requested the issuance of a writ petition to ensure the proper implementation of labor welfare laws such as the Mines Act of 1952, the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, and the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, among others.

The Supreme Court interpreted the recommended epistle as a Writ Petition. Two lawyers, Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda, were designated as administrator officials by a court to visit and work with the personnel at the stone quarries that were mentioned in the letter. The following was said in the commissioners’ assessment, which was released on March 2, 1982:

1. There were innumerable marble processing devices functioning, generating a dusty milieu that really was difficult to breathe in.

2. Owing to a shortage of access to pure water, most inhabitants were constrained to consume filthy nallah water.

3. Laborers had no way to leave the stone quarries, so they lived in jhugies composed of heaped stones and straw.

4. They were forbidden from obtaining compensation for work-related injuries.

On March 5, 1982, the Court mandated that copies of Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda’s Report be provided to each respondent via written requests so that they may respond to the information contained therein. In order for the State Government and its staff to take the necessary action to address the problem, the Court has tasked Dr. Patwardhan of the Indian Institute of Technology conducting a social and legal study on veracity of governmental duties.

ISSUES RAISED :

The Apex Court determined the potential issue after Dr. Patwardhan’s exhaustive and well-documented report was brought to the court:

1. Does the Plea filed in pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution have any legal validity?

2. Does it matter if fundamental human rights have been overturned?

3. Is it legal for the Supreme Court to select an oversight commission?

4. Can the Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act of 1976’s provisions be implemented in this predicament?

5. Persists a conflict of views about the implementation of various worker social welfare laws?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED :

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

First, a letter summarizing the petitioner organization’s concerns and articulating their reasoning was sent. It was examined by the Court in its capacities as a writ petition. In alleviating the susceptibility of the mining and exploration workers, the petitioner institution was acting pro bono publico. Yet, the appellant made no legal explanations.

In the above mentioned letter, the petitioners highlighted the following reservations or grumblings:

1. They weren’t able to properly breathe because of the dusty atmosphere because the runtime ecosystem of the stone quarry was so deadly;

2. Several workers were prohibited from fleeing the quarries by intimidation;

3. The workers were compelled to drink untreated water from nullahs and were not even provided with access to pure water for drinking.

4. The personnel were dwelling in Jhuggies since they lacked a safe place to live;

5. Several of the workforce had connective tissue disorders, but no healthcare clinic was available to them;

6. Employees should receive any sort of reimbursement for injury inflicted during the period that they were working.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

1. That under the limitations of Article 32, an ou pas letter cannot be considered as a writ petition, hence the writ proposal in the current matter cannot be preserved before this Hon’ble Court. Besides that, the petitioner lacks local validity in this case specifically;

2. that as the petitioner’s fundamental rights were never infringed in the present case, Article 32 can indeed be asserted and the petition cannot be pursued;

3. That Regulation XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules of Procedure, 1966’s scope and competence have already been disregarded by the court, and that Article 32 does not agree to allow the appointment of any commission or independent investigator;

4. that the Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act, 1976’s stipulations, will not be able to be used in the present predicament. The workers’ allegation that they were falsely convicted in the quarries and subjected to compelled labor must be confirmed by adequate documentation. In the present instance, there is no such compelling evidence that can be used to demonstrate the existence of bond labor.

RATIO & JUDGMENT :

The bench was headed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati:

In ruling on the “Bandhua Mukti Morcha” case, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for maintaining children’s education rights , happiness, and amelioration in a bid to guarantee India’s advancement as a representative government.

The Court determined that practical efforts might be made to ensure and enhance the children’s rights in the underprivileged and weak populations of Indian culture, notwithstanding the fact that it was felt that migrant labor could not be instantly stopped owing to financial need.

The Court highlighted various fundamental rights and order principles of the Indian Constitution in endorsement of its conclusion, including Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty), Article 24 (which prohibits the employment of children under 14 in plants, mines, or other dangerous enterprises), Article 39 (e) (which forbids placing inhabitants in jobs that are woefully inadequate for their age or strength), and Article 39(f) (which outlines the State’s responsibility for safeguarding citizens) (notices the State to provide with free education to all children under 14 years).

The directives commanded the States to put methodologies into position to effectively end the work opportunities of children under the age of 14; to foist executive orders going to require all children staffed in mines, industrial facilities, and other places of employment to attend the school; to contribute to making sure the children eat a diet steeply in supplements; and to strictly limit the recurrence of physical examinations. In its decision, the Court made clear that the Supervisory board of the Court was considered necessary to make frequent notifications regarding the progress of the proposal’s successful implementation. 

CONCLUSION :

The Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India litigation, along with child unskilled labor cases of public interest litigations, has been successful in raising child labor-related issues and putting issues conspicuously on the government’s agenda.

Many initiatives, in particular in the field of education have started being accepted to eradicate child labour, and law and policy are moving towards the official nullification of child labour. One result has been a reduction in the use of working children in the textile industries.

Despite this, a significant number of children in India are being exploited on the job market, and stronger, more effective protections for children’s rights are considered necessary.

Written by: Rimi Agarwal, Manipal University, Japiur.