Scribd
Upload
523 views8 pages

Bonded Labor Case: Bandhua Mukti Morcha

The Supreme Court case involved a writ petition filed by an association advocating for migrant workers in India. [1] The petition alleged that many stone quarry workers in Haryana were migrant workers living and working under brutal conditions without basic legal protections and social welfare benefits. [2] The key legal issues debated were whether the writ petition was valid under Article 32, if any fundamental rights were violated, and if the workers were entitled to protections under various labor laws. [3] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the workers, finding that their rights were being denied and directing both central and state governments to take actions to protect workers in accordance with labor laws.

Uploaded by

Rohan Mithra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
523 views8 pages

Bonded Labor Case: Bandhua Mukti Morcha

The Supreme Court case involved a writ petition filed by an association advocating for migrant workers in India. [1] The petition alleged that many stone quarry workers in Haryana were migrant workers living and working under brutal conditions without basic legal protections and social welfare benefits. [2] The key legal issues debated were whether the writ petition was valid under Article 32, if any fundamental rights were violated, and if the workers were entitled to protections under various labor laws. [3] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the workers, finding that their rights were being denied and directing both central and state governments to take actions to protect workers in accordance with labor laws.

Uploaded by

Rohan Mithra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V.

UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS.

AIR 1984 SCC 802


FACTS:
The petitioner, an association committed to the reason of the arrival of reinforced workers in the nation, tended

to a letter to Hon’ble Bhagwati, J. asserting:

(1) that there were a large number of workers from various parts of the nation who were working in some of the

stone quarries arrange in area Faridabad, the State of Haryana under “brutal and insufferable conditions;

(2) that a large number of them were reinforced workers;

(3) that the arrangements of the Constitution and different social welfare laws went to help the said laborers

were definitely not being actualized with respect to these laborers.


Legal Principles involved:
The legal principles or the law involved in this case are:

• Bonded Labour System Act, 1976

• Mines Rules, 1955

• Mines Vocational Training Rules, 1966

• Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution


Issues

◦ Whether the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the constitution is valid or not.

◦ Whether any fundamental right of the worker was actually violated or not.

◦ Whether the Supreme court is empowered to appoint any commission or investigating body under

Article 32 of the constitution or not.

◦ Whether the workmen mentioned tin the case are bonded labourers are not

◦ Whether workmen in the present case entitled to relief under various social labour legislations or

not.
Respondent’s contention

• Article 32 of the Constitution is not attracted to the instant case as no the central right of the petitioner or the laborers alluded

to in the appeal is encroached;

• A letter tended to by a gathering to this Court can’t be treated as a writ appeal;

• In a procedure under Article 32, this Court is not enabled to designate any commission or an exploring body to enquire into

the claims made in the writ appeal;

• Reports made by such commissions are in view of on ex-parte explanations which have not been tried by interrogation and

hence they have no evidentiary worth; and

• There may be constrained workers in the stone quarries and stone smashers in the State of Haryana however they were not

fortified workers inside the importance of that articulation as utilized in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. 
JUDGMENT

◦ The Court discussed the importance of protecting children’s rights to education, health, and development in

ensuring India’s progress as a democracy.  While recognizing that child labour could not be abolished immediately

due to economic necessity, the Court found that pragmatic steps could be taken to protect and promote the rights of

children in the poverty-stricken and vulnerable populations of Indian society. 

◦ In support of its conclusion, the Court referred to various fundamental rights and directive principles of the Indian

Constitution including, Article 21, Article 24, Article 39 (e), Article 39(f), and Article 45.

◦ The Court also noted India’s obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the

Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide free primary education for all children in the country, and to

protect children against economic exploitation. 


◦ The measures ordered to abolish child labour set out in an earlier case, M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu &

Ors. [[(1996) 6 SCC 756] were referenced by the Court and incorporated in orders to the States of Uttar

Pradesh and Bihar. 


The Supreme Court further gave directions to the government of Haryana, the Central Government and other

administrative authorities.

 The government of Haryana within 6 weeks of the judgement shall constitute a vigilance committee in each

division of district to ensure compliance under Section 13 of the Bonded Labour Act, 1976.

 The government of Haryana will appoint a district magistrate to identify the bonded labour as per the law.

 Both the Central and State Government together must ensure the implementation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

 The concern offices from the Central government has to conduct surprise visits at least once a week.

 The Central Board of Workers education will organise camps often to educate the workers about their rights and

benefits provided by law.

You might also like