PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1982 SC 1473

INTRODUCTION 

This case is the landmark case of supreme court which throws light on human’s rights, dignity and liberty and also showing the awful conditions of women labour, workmen and child labour in our society. This case belongs to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which has aim to protects and safeguard public interest and fundamental right of every citizen and every class of society.

This case has been initiated by people’s union for democratic rights (PUDR) through a writ petition in supreme court to seek justice for labours who are engaged in the construction work for (ASIAN GAMES).

Main ambit of this case is not considering authorities a faulting party but to ensure that every citizen has right to equal pay for equal work.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 1982 ASIAN Games were held in Delhi for that reason Government of India had to do some construction work in respect of the Games tournament held in Delhi on international standards as it was the greatest opportunity for Delhi to host the ASIAN Games.

Government of India decides to do construction work such as – Making stadium, swimming pool, buildings, hotels etc.

This construction work held under the supervision of Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Corporation and New Delhi Administration; these authorities hire contractor for the construction work.

Contractors further hires few labours called as jamadars with women workers and child workers also indulge in the construction work

Contractors received 11.22 rupees from the govt but they did not pay the minimum wages to the labours, they only paid 8.25/- rupees per day to workmen’s and for women worker and child workers they paid 7 rupees per day as their wages.  

Contractors forced the labours to work at feverish place and beyond working hours even in a bad health condition they don’t give them any sort of relief.

Childrens who are engaged in such construction work are dying from mal-nutrition due to not having good diet and over pressure of such heavy work.

Contractors deduct one rupee from the wages of workers and they also treat workers very bad as the PUDR organization visited their construction site for confirmation and investigating the same and they find it true.

Child labour is also indulged in such construction project. There are children’s who is below 14 years of age are doing such job which is infringement of article 24 of Indian constitution.

The petitioner people’s union for democratic rights issue writ petition to the supreme court and claiming that there is an infringement of labour’s fundamental and legal right because they do not get the equal wages for the equal work and this organisation.

ISSUES

1 The main issue was raised in this case that whether the government or custodial authority is liable for the fault or negligence of contractors.

2 whether the court can pass judgement in respect of article 32 against the private contractors.

3 whether the labours fundamental rights are infringes?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

In the petition, the petitioner had described the violation of these acts: –

• Minimum wages act 1978.

As the labours not even get their minimum wages because one rupee was deducted by contractors but it was denied by the other three respondent such as Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Corporation and New Delhi Administration.

• Equal labour act 1976, equal renumeration act 1976.

It is said that labours must get equal wages for equal work, but we can see discrimination among males and females here by inequal distribution of wages where workmen get 8.25 rupees per day and women worker get 7 rupees per day which is not even entitled to minimum wages.

• Child labour act 1979

It was also argued that article 24 of Indian constitution was breached as the construction work include child labours who has not attained the age of majority.

It was also argued that there is continuous exploitation of workers and they forced to do work beyond the working hours, petitioner said that it is the utmost duty of the custodial authority to check and supervise that whether work has been done fairly or not even this is a fault on the part of private contractors.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

It was argued that the respondent who is respective authority not liable because it was a fault on the part of private contractors and the labours are the employees of contractor not of custodial authorities 

Respondent also stated that principle of article 32 not applicable here as there is no infringement of fundamental right for deduction of minimum wages but it can be violation of other labour laws 

As the workstation is not considered as hazardous or dangerous place for children, respondent defend themselves with this statement and it was argued by the side of respondent that there was no violation of article 24 of the Indian constitution.

Respective respondent such as Delhi Development, New Delhi Corporation and New Delhi Administration said that they paid the mentioned amount to the contractor and denied that there were no deductions from their side.

Custodial authorities have doubt that the amount might be deducted by contractors but union of India clearly agreed upon this fact and admit that the amount was deducted.

JUDGEMENT

While dealing with the first issue, it was held by the court that there should be the responsibilities of these respective authority to double check that their people will get the right wages or they treated well or not, however it was the mistake on the part of private contractors that they have hurt labour’s legal right and their human dignity but the Asian games were supervised by the custodial authorities and they are liable to have knowledge about the project.

Court passed judgement in respect of article 32 in the favour of petitioner, because labours can claim constitutional remedies as their fundamental rights infringes during the course of employment under this construction work.

Talking about the last issue raised in this case, court said that it was a violation of labours fundamental right because there was children’s who indulge in such construction work and are below the age of 14 years which stated under article 14 of Indian Constitution “No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any hazardous employment”

Lastly, the scope of article 17,21,23 is explained and extend it’s meaning to cover nonpayment and less payment of the workers, where labours forced to do work even after the working hours which somewhere affected the ambit of article 21 “right to live with human dignity.

CONCLUSION 

In my opinion the bench judgement was appreciable and credible as they support the labour class and give such importance, common peoples can directly file their cases if their fundamental right is violated and the court take it to the peak of its justice 

And, wider meaning has also be given to article 21 under this case that human dignity plays an important role if you are employed somewhere, it is the right of the employer to maintain their dignity and integrity during the course of their employment.

REFFERENCE

1 Constitution of India bare act

2 People’s Union for Democratic … vs Union of India & Others on 18 September, 1982 (indiankanoon.org)

3. Labour & Industrial Laws bare act.

Written by Riya Sharma an intern under legal vidhiya.

Admin