People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. V. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473

Citation	AIR 1982 SC 1473
Date of Judgement	18th, September
Court	The Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Writ Petition
Appellants	People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors
Respondent	Union of India & ors.
Bench	Justice P. N. Bhagwati and justice Baharul Islam.
Section and Statutes referred	Employment of Children Act, 1938 Section – 3(3) .The constitution of India – Articles 14, 21, 23, 24 and 32.Minimum Wages Act, 1976 – Section 20 and 21.Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 – Sections 12, 4 and 5.Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Sections 13 to 19.Interstate Migrant Workmen ( Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979- Section 3(3).

FACTS OF THE CASE 

PUDR is an organisation which works for improving the working conditions of the citizens and also ensures to provide their rights, employed three social scientists, who after analysing could bring out the report on the exploitation and living conditions of workmen working under the contractors employed by Union of India.

 It was observed that the workers who were working on the ASIAD –  82 project were not provided with daily minimum wages. They have to work on the sites both on stadiums and the infrastructure like hotels, flyovers etc.

The workers were forced to complete the work as early as possible and was known as “Begar” as they were recruited by the construction contractors without having fixed working hours and they were not even paid. 

Because of this their children were lacking the basic necessities and were forced to be malnourished and became the victims to the accidents.

PUDR, also visited major sites and after interviewing various employees filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India on November 16, 1981. By way of PIL, it was requested to issue observance of the provisions of various labour laws in relation to the workers employed in the construction work of the ASIAD -82 projects. 

ISSUES RAISED 

• Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the private individual under Article 32 of the Constitution of India ?

• Whether the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution of India also includes the right to live with human dignity and right to livelihood ?

• Whether there was any violation of the rights of the workers by the contractors?

ARGUMENTS 

CONTENTIONS FROM  THE  PETITIONER’S  SIDE 

The petitioner argued that the contractors engaged the workers through jamadars who bought them from different parts of India and were not paid daily minimum wages. They were to be paid Rs 9.25 per day but they were only paid Rs 8.25 per day as Rupee one was deducted by the jamadars for their commission. Hence they violated the provision of Minimum Wage Act.

 There was a violation of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, as women workers were paid less than the male workers, they were only paid as Rs 7 per day for their work and their wage was misappropriated by the contractors.

There was violation of Article 21 because they have also engaged children below 14 years of age in factories and mining work which was hazardous for them. 

Article 23 was also violated because labourers were not paid daily wages which they were entitled to. So if they are getting less wages then the minimum wages, it will be considered as forced labour.

The provision of Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition Act),1970 was violated which resulted in the exploitation of workers as they were not provided with the facilities and deprived of other rights like proper living conditions and medical facilities.

CONTENTIONS FROM THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE 

The respondent argued that the petitioner’s had no locus standi to file the writ petition as their was no violation of their rights it was the labourers whose rights have been violated and they should have filed the petition because as there is no cause of action aroused for the petitioner i.e  PUDR.

Further it was argued by the respondent that the workers whose rights were allegedly infringed were employees of the contractors not the respondent hence they are not liable for the violation of their rights. So the cause of action should be against the contractors and not the respondent. Therefore the writ petition under article 32 cannot lie against the respondent.

JUDGEMENT 

The petition was allowed and the Supreme Court upheld a right of poor workers to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for the enforcement of rights created under various labour laws particularly the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970, Equal Remuneration Act 1976, Employment of Children Act , 1970, and Minimum Wages Act 1948.

The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life ) to include the Right to livelihood as well as the “Right to Live with Fundamental Human Dignity and also said that whenever any construction work is being carried out, the government or any other governmental authority including a public sector corporation which is carrying out such work should ensures that provisions of the labour laws are being strictly observed.

The Court further said that the workers voluntarily contracted to perform the service which was sought to be compelled and there was therefore no violation of the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment. The wage shall be paid directly without the intervention of the jamadars and that the jamadars shall not deduct or recover, any amount from the minimum wage payable to the workmen as or by way of commission or otherwise.

 REFERENCES 

https://www.manupatrafast.com/

https://www.legalserviceindia.com.legal/article-9334-pudr-v-s-union-of-india.html

https://www.lawinsider.in/