Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directives to Eradicate Bonded Labour and Improve Conditions of Stone Quarry Workers in Haryana

Historic Judgment Recognizes Public Interest Litigation as a Tool for Social Justice, Orders State and Central Governments to Enforce Labour Laws, Ensure Rehabilitation and Basic Human Rights of Bonded Labourers

In a landmark judgment delivered on December 16, 1983, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, comprehensively addressed the long-standing menace of bonded labour prevalent in stone quarries of Faridabad district, Haryana. The Court recognized the systemic exploitation and deplorable living conditions faced by labourers, many of whom were bonded labourers subjected to forced and unpaid labour under inhuman conditions.

The petitioner, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, a social organization dedicated to the cause of bonded labourers, approached the Supreme Court through a letter highlighting the plight of workers in stone quarries who were living in squalor, denied basic amenities such as pure drinking water, medical facilities, and were forced to work under bonded conditions.

Rejecting preliminary objections by the State of Haryana and mine owners that fundamental rights were not violated and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a letter as a writ petition, the Supreme Court held that public interest litigation is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution, especially when fundamental rights of vulnerable groups are at stake. The Court emphasized that the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights is not limited to the aggrieved persons themselves but extends to any member of the public acting bonafide on their behalf.

The Court appointed commissioners and ordered socio-legal inquiries into the working and living conditions of the quarry workers. The reports confirmed the appalling conditions: workers lived in makeshift jhuggis with no shelter from sun and rain, consumed polluted water, lacked medical care, and many suffered from diseases like tuberculosis. Workers were often bonded through “thekedars” (contractors) who exploited them by charging illegal commissions and denying them minimum wages.

Significantly, the Supreme Court clarified the applicability of various statutes including the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Mines Act, 1952, Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to these workers. It held that:

- Bonded labour system is unconstitutional and prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.

- Bonded labourers need not prove receipt of bonded debt to claim relief; if forced labour is established, a presumption of bonded labour arises.

- The State and Central Governments have a constitutional and statutory obligation to identify bonded labourers, release them, and ensure their rehabilitation.

- Minimum wages must be paid to quarry workers, and the current practice of deducting expenses for explosives and drilling from wages is illegal.

- Basic amenities such as pure drinking water, latrines, medical and first aid facilities must be provided immediately.

- Stone crushers must adopt measures to reduce dust pollution to protect workers’ health.

The Court directed the Government of Haryana to constitute Vigilance Committees in every district and sub-division and to prioritize identification and rehabilitation of bonded labourers. It also appointed Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, as Commissioner to conduct a detailed inquiry into bonded labour in Faridabad stone quarries, the existence of contract labour and interstate migrant workmen, and compliance with labour laws.

Further, the Court ordered the Central Board of Workers Education to conduct awareness camps to educate quarry workers about their rights under labour laws. It mandated strict supervision and surprise inspections by labour enforcement officers to ensure compliance with wage payments and safety regulations.

Importantly, the Supreme Court underscored that public interest litigation is not adversarial but a powerful instrument to enforce constitutional mandates and social justice. It recognized the need for flexible procedures under Article 32 to accommodate the realities of poverty, illiteracy, and helplessness faced by vulnerable groups.

The judgment also cautioned the judiciary to exercise judicial activism with restraint, respecting the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, while fulfilling its constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights.

This historic judgment marks a turning point in the fight against bonded labour in India, setting a precedent for proactive judicial intervention in social welfare issues. It reaffirms the judiciary’s role as a sentinel of fundamental rights and a catalyst for social change, mandating immediate and sustained action by the Governments to eradicate bonded labour and uplift the dignity of labourers.

Statutory provisions

Articles 21, 23, 32, 39(e), 39(f), 41, 42 of the Constitution of India; Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 10-15); Mines Act, 1952 (Sections 2, 3, 18-21); Mines Rules, 1955 (Rules 30-36, 40-45A); Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979; Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923; Payment of Wages Act, 1936; Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948; Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; Maternity Benefit Act, 1961; Maternity Benefit (Mines and Circus) Rules, 1963; Mines Vocational Training Rules, 1966; Mines Creche Rules, 1966.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 90773