People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors v. The Union of India and Ors., A.I.R 1982 SC 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

INTRODUCTION

The People’s Union for Democratic Rights is an organization that is dedicated towards fostering an environment wherein no citizens of the country are devoid of their democratic rights. This organization came into being in 1977 as a unit in Delhi known as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights which later came to be known as the People’s Union for Democratic Rights on February 1, 1981. The aforementioned organization after interviewing and understanding deeply the plight of the labourers working on the ASIAD 82 Project instituted a case in the apex court by way of a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the state on account of the failure of the state to ensure the compliance of the land laws by the private contractors or any other persons. The said organization contended that the labourers were being ostracized and exploited by private contractors and that the state’s inability to prevent this suffering of the labourers violated the latter’s fundamental right enshrined under Articles 14, 21, 23 and 24 of the Constitution of India.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE-

The Asian Games were to be held in Delhi, India, consequently, the Government of India gave the responsibility to the Delhi Administration, Delhi Municipal Committee, and the Delhi Development Authority to carry out the work for the construction of highways, roads, stadiums, swimming pools, inter alia. Private Contractors had to be engaged for carrying out the construction work. These contractors through middlemen known as the Jamadars employed an enormous labour force from throughout the length and breadth of the country. The People’s Union for Democratic Rights (hereinafter the PUDR) appointed three social scientists to conduct an investigation concerning the working condition of the labourers so employed in carrying out the ASIAD-82 Project. As per the report of the said investigation, the contractors were acting in contravention of the labour laws, violating provisions namely Section 20 and Section 21 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, The Employment of Children Act, 1938, Section 3(3) of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of employment and conditions of Service) Act,1979, Section 13 to Section 19 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Section 12 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. Pursuant to the report of the investigation the PUDR addressed a letter to a Supreme Court Judge reiterating that the violation of the above-mentioned provisions of the labour laws was also a violation of the Fundamental rights of the labourers. This letter or a public interest communication was considered a Writ Petition by the judiciary and the Union of India, Delhi Administration, and Delhi Development Authority were arrayed as the respondents to this petition. On May 11, 1982, the court sensing the urgency of the matter at hand directed the respondents to strictly observe the labour laws.

ISSUES RAISED-

The issues raised before the court by the parties to the matter at hand are as follows,

1. Whether the petitioner can maintain a petition on behalf of the labourers?
2. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable against the Union of India, the Delhi Administration, and the Delhi Development Authority when the offending parties are private contractors, and whether the court can pass directions Under Article 32 to private parties?
3. Whether the petition is maintainable where there is a breach of ordinary rights under labour law and not of any fundamental rights of the labourers?
4. Whether the Right to live with human dignity and the Right to livelihood falls within the ambit of  Article-21 of the Indian Constitution?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER-

In the given case the petitioners contended that the Delhi Administration, the Delhi Development Authority and the Delhi Municipal Committee that were directed to execute the ASIAD-82 Project by the government had hired Private Contractors under Section 7 of the Contract Labour Act 1970 to carry out the projects. These contractors however hired labourers through jamadars who were paid the minimum wage instead of the workers directly in contravention of the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioners further contended that the respondents were responsible for violating the rights of the labourers enshrined under Article 24 of the Indian Constitution, as they violated the provisions of the Employment of Children Acts of 1938 and 1970 as the contractors’ employed children below the age of 14 years in their establishment to carry out construction work. The Contractors also violated the provisions of the Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970, as the labourers were denied access to medical and other health and safety services under the Act while also violating the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 which in turn was a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the labourers were denied equality before the law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of the non-enforcement of the Equal Remuneration Act.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS-

In the given case the Respondent contended that the Petitioners lacked locus standi to file a writ petition since the rights of the Petitioners had not been violated by the respondents. The respondents further argued that the labourers were employed by the contractors, therefore, it was not the respondents but the private contractors that were responsible for any liability arising due to non-compliance with the land laws. The respondents also argued that the Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution if India was not maintainable as a mere violation of ordinary laws under the labour law does not amount to a violation of fundamental rights. The respondents stated that they did not receive any complaint with respect to the violation of the provisions of the Employment of Children Act, 1938 and that Section 3 (3) of the said act was not applicable in case of employment in a construction industry as the said industry is not a process specified in the schedule.

JUDGEMENT:-

In the given case the court under Para 2 and Para 9  of the judgement reiterated that although as per the traditional rule of law, only the person that has suffered the legal injury shall have access to legal redressal, the new strategy devised by the court allows aggrieved individuals that are unable to approach the court to seek redressal through persons in the public by way of an application or a letter wherein such person has a bonafide intention on bringing the court’s attention towards the plight of the plaintiff. Thus, the apex court was correct in treating the letter of PUDR as a writ petition. Under para 10 of the judgement, the court further observed that even though the Public Interest Litigation espouses the cause of workmen engaged by private contractors, the Union of India, Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority that had entrusted the construction projects to the private contractors cannot evade their responsibility and the liability thereof on the failure of the contractors to comply with the requisite land laws. Stating that under various labour Acts applicable in the said case the Government is the principal employer and on the failure of the contractors to provide the statutory benefit and amenities the same is prima facie enforceable against the Government. the Government cannot be allowed to be a silent spectator to breach of mandates of the Constitution by contractors to whom they have entrusted work. The apex court under para 11 of the judgement held that the condition precedent for maintaining the petition under Article 32 for breach of any fundamental right may be provided by the breach of the statutory laws. Non-enforcement of Equal Remuneration Act amounts to denial of equality under Article 14, while the non-compliance with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 amounts to violation of Article 21 of the constitution of India. Further stating that these acts are intended to ensure basic human dignity to the workmen and the State cannot deprive anyone of this precious and invaluable right because no procedure by which such deprivation may be effected can ever be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. The non-payment of minimum wage is a breach of the fundamental right under Article 23 . In the given case the apex court interpreted Article 21 braodly and upheld that Right to live with human dignity and the Right to livelihood falls within the ambit of  Article-21 of the Indian Constitution.

CONCLUSION

Justice P.N. Bhagwati the pioneer of the conceptualization of Public Interest Litigation in India in the given case strengthened the concept of PILs while reiterating that while under the traditional law, it is only the aggrieved person that has access to legal redressal under the new method devised by the court any person who is unable to approach courts on account of any disability, poverty or any social or economical disadvantage can be brought to justice by being represented by any person having a bonafide interest in such matter. Thus, ensuring that no individual is denied justice. The court in the given case established that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution must be interpreted broadly for the larger good of the people and ensured that the plight of the labourers does not go unnoticed by holding the State responsible for the non compliance of the labour laws.

This article is written by Ananya Gosain, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Admin

PDF