Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 13th August 2020
People’s Union For Democratic Rights And Others Vs Union Of India
FACTS:
This case was related to child labour. In this case, it was found out that construction workers who were employed in the site were child labourers they were brought from backward villages of Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. In addition to that, the working conditions were miserable and the living conditions were even worse. The Child labourers were paid less than the minimum wage and their health condition was deteriorating rapidly. They were working on infrastructure facilities of hotels and flyovers. In 1981, the bad living conditions and miserable working conditions were brought to the public’s knowledge by the team of people’s union for democratic right (PUDR). Thus, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court and many concerns were put forward by the PUDR. This was considered as a landmark judgement and put a lot of importance in the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
RULES:
Writ petition under article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
ISSUES:
Whether Article-21 of the Indian Constitution also includes right to live with human dignity and right to livelihood? And whether the writ petition can be maintainable against an individual under Article-32 of the Indian Constitution?
PETITIONER CONTENTION:
The petitioner contended that the contracters cleverly brought these labourers to work through middle men known as jamamdars to carry out the construction work. Further stated that various acts were violated by the contracts as the minimum wage was not paid to the workers directly but instead paid to the jamamdras which means that the workers were being paid very less. Children below 14 years were working in these construction sites under hazardous conditions which was against the employment of children’s act. There were also further misappropriations of migrations of workers and women workers not being paid their entire dues.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION:
The respondent contended that the petitioners have no locus standi as none of their rights were being violated and the petitioners could not ask for any cause of action as the case did not affect them in any way and it only concerns the rights of the workers. They also contended that the writ petition could not stand as the workers were not the employees of the petitioners but were the employees of someone else. Thus, they denied and negated all the allegations that were made against them claimed that it was not maintainable in court.
BENCH OBSERVATION:
The bench comprising of Justice P.N Bhagwati and Justice Baharul Islam observed that forced labour is prohibited in the country and is violates article 21 of the Indian constitution. The court said that it is the duty of the government and it’s organizations to check if the various laws are properly implemented or not. Basic human dignity must be given utmost importance and issues of forced labour and bonded labour must be dealt with immediately.
JUDGEMENT:
The court in its judgement said that the rights of a poor worker to be upheld and said that the Writ petition was maintainable under article 32 of the Indian constitution. The Supreme Court also expanded the scope of article 21 of the Indian Constitution and included “right to livelihood” along with “right to live” with basic dignity. The court broke the chain of rules and regulations and moulded it for the benefit of the general public at large.
Leave a Reply