People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors v. The Union of India and Ors.

Citation	A.I.R 1982 SC 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456.
Date of Judgement	September 18, 1982.
Court	Supreme Court
Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff	People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors
Respondents/Defendant	The Union of India and Ors.
Bench	Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice Baharul Islam.

INTRODUCTION

This case comment describes how an organisation called PUDR, which promotes the protection and welfare of democratic rights, filed a PIL against the State because it failed to pay labourers the daily minimum wage and to provide a safe workplace. The poor were suffering, but they were unable to seek redress in court, so this organisation, after researching and speaking with several workers, filed the petition. This breaches the Indian Constitution’s Articles 21, 23, and 24 as well as the Minimum Wage Act, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act), 1970, and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.

FACTS

An organisation called PUDR works to defend the democratic rights of citizens. It has been noted that the workers on the ASIAD-82 project did not work in a healthy atmosphere or get the daily minimum pay. They must work on construction sites for both stadiums and other infrastructure, such as hotels and flyovers.

The laborers, known as “Begar” since they were hired by the construction contractors without having set working hours or being paid, were compelled to finish the job as quickly as possible. As a result, their kids lacked the requirements, were forced to go without food, and were injured in accidents.

Three ombudsmen (social scientists), who were employed by PUDR, an organisation that works to improve working conditions for citizens and to uphold their rights, were able to compile a report on the mistreatment and living conditions of labourers employed by contractors hired by the Union of India after conducting their analysis.

After visiting important locations and interviewing several employees, PUDR filed a Writ petition with the Supreme Court on November 16, 1981. By means of a PIL, it demanded that the provisions of several labour laws be observed with regard to the employees hired to complete the ASIAD-82 projects’ construction work. The scientists were required to provide the Honourable Supreme Court with reports on a weekly basis about occurrences of lawlessness.

ISSUES

1. Does Article 32 of the Indian Constitution permit the Writ petition against the private person to be maintained?
2. Is the right to live with dignity and the right to a living included in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

CONTENTIONS

From Petitioner-

The petitioner claimed that the contractors did not pay the daily minimum wage because they hired the employees through Jamadars, who brought them in from various regions of India. They were supposed to receive Rs 9.25 daily, but the jamadars withheld Rs 1 daily as their commission, leaving them with only Rs 8.25 daily. As a result, they broke the Minimum Wages Act’s rules.

The Equal Remuneration Act of 1976 was broken because female employees were paid less and contractors stole their wages, giving them just Rs 7 for each day of labour.

Article 24 was broken because the sites hired kids younger than 14 to work in mines and industries, which are dangerous for them.

The stipulations of the 1970 Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition Act) were broken, which led to the exploitation of the employees since they were denied access to amenities and their entitlement to sanitary living circumstances and medical care.

Since the workers were not paid the daily pay to which they were due, Article 23 was also broken, constituting a case of forced labour. They will be judged to be performing forced labour or working as beggars if they are paid less than the minimum wage.

Fron Respondent-

According to the Respondent, there was no breach of their rights, hence the Petitioner lacked locus standi when they filed the writ petition. Because no cause of action has been raised against the petitioner, the PUDR, the workers whose rights were violated should have filed the petition.

The reply stated that because the contractors, not the respondents, really directly hired the employees, the respondents are not responsible for the workers’ rights being violated. The petition could not be filed against the respondents since the cause of action was against the contractors and not them. The respondents cannot be held accountable for the claimed breaches in the writ petition filed under section 32.

The Union of India, the Delhi Administration, and the Delhi Development Authority disputed that the contractors had violated any of the provisions of the Employment of Children Act of 1938 because they had never received a complaint alleging that those provisions had been broken. Additionally, it was argued on behalf of these Authorities that the Employment of Children Act of 1938 did not apply to employment in the construction work of these projects because the construction industry is not a process listed in the Schedule and is not covered by the provisions of section 3’s subparagraph 474(3) of that Act.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Court ruled that a poor worker has the right to directly petition the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to have their rights enforced. In particular, the provisions of the Contract Labour (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 Wage Act of 1970 were cited. 

The court stated that it would be impossible to maintain the strictness and ensure compliance with the rules if the sole punishment for violating labour laws was to pay inadequate fines, since individuals would grow hesitant to do so because they would be required to pay very little in relation to the crimes they had done. The laws would be little more than toothless tigers.

The petitioner argues that while it is true that they were not in a position to file the writ petition because they were created for the welfare of the workers, it is the labourers who should do so because they are the ones who have suffered the legal injury and should seek redress in court. But the idea of locus standi is its new dimension, replacing the previous norm of standing, which was a bequest from the Anglo-Saxon system of law.

Due to the numerous socioeconomic situations that plague the nation—poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, and disability—the poor are unable to go to court and fight for their rights in order to obtain justice. Therefore, any member who is acting in good faith and without ulterior motives may petition the court for compensation for the legal harm incurred by those who are unable to advocate for themselves due to their circumstances. The petitioner is a group that advocates for the upholding of workers’ rights. It is hence obviously maintained.

The petitioner argues that even if it is true that the workers were the contractors’ employees, this does not relieve the respondents of their responsibility to monitor the application of relevant labour rules. In terms of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970, it is evident that under Section 20 if any amenity is required to be provided under Sections 16, 17, 18, or 19 for the benefit of the workers employed in an establishment is not provided by the contractor, the obligation to provide such amenity rests on the principal employer. As a result, if during the construction of the Asiad projects, any amenity required to be provided under Sections 16, 17, 18, or 19 is not provided by the contractor.

The primary employer is responsible for providing this amenity, so if during the Asiad projects’ construction, the contractors fail to fulfill the duties placed on them by any of these sections, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration, and the Delhi Development Authority would be held accountable and these obligations would be enforced against them. The primary employer is required to pay the migrant workers’ daily salaries under sections 17 and 18 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service), and if they fail to do so, it will be enforced against them.

The respondents (The Union of India, Delhi Developmental Authority, and Delhi Administration) have a duty to ensure that this commitment is upheld by the contractors since the mines engaged children under the age of 14 in dangerous employment that is injurious to the children.

According to the respondents, the petition cannot be upheld under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution unless a basic right has been violated. The petition is legitimate in court, the court determined.

The petitioner cited Article 23, which expressly protects the person and forbids the trafficking of people as well as other types of forced labour and slavery. The term “beggar” is not the only kind of forced employment that is forbidden by Article 23, since all other forms of forced labour violate human dignity and fundamental human values, infringing likewise Article 21.

Political freedom was meaningless without social and economic freedom, so the social and economic revolution needed to continue in order to establish social and economic conditions where everyone could enjoy fundamental human rights and share in the benefits of freedom and liberty within an egalitarian social and economic framework.

According to the court, Article 21 guarantees everyone the right to life, which also encompasses the fundamental human right to dignity. The government, or any other governmental authority, including a public sector corporation, which is carrying out such work, must take great care to ensure that the provisions of the labour laws are strictly observed whenever any construction work is being carried out, whether departmentally or through contractors.

The legal aid movement and public interest litigation work to provide justice for these undervalued members of society who make up the majority of Indian citizens and who actually and genuinely are the “People of India” who created this glorious Constitution. It is true that there are significant unpaid court debts, but this cannot be an excuse for denying access to justice to the underprivileged and weaker members of society.

No State has the authority to inform its citizens that until the court system is able to handle the overwhelming number of claims brought by the wealthy and well-off, we will not assist the poor in accessing the legal system to seek justice.

This Article is written by Anshula Grover from Shoolini University, an intern at legal vidhiya.