Author: Posa Venkata Bhavya, Sri Padmavati Mahila Visva Vidyalayam

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The mission of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights is to defend the legal rights of laborers and workers under labor laws. The petitioners have called for equal pay for all workers without regard to gender, health precautions for workers in dangerous jobs like construction sites, and safety measures for employees at work. In this instance, these rights were contested.

Keywords (Minimum 5):  Labourers, workers, employers, employees,  Article 32, Article 24, PIL, Fundamental Rights,  Contract, Wages, Construction,  responsibility.

CASE DETAILS

Judgement Cause Title	Writ Petition
Case Number	Writ Petition No. 8143 of 1981
Judgement Date	18th September 1982
Court	Supreme Court of India
Quorum	3 – Bench Judges
Author	P.N. Bhagawati, Islam, Baharul (J)
Citation	AIR 1982 SC 1473
Legal Provisions Involved	Legal Provisions and acts Involved: – Article 32, Article 24 of the Constitution of India,  Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) act 1970, Employment of Children act, Equal Remuneration act, 1976, Minimum Wages act 1948.Inter-state migrant workers(Regulation of Employment and conditions of service) at 1979 .

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case is a landmark judgement deals with workers rights regarding minimum wages  work condition at their working area and safety precautions at workplace.

This act involved in the case or contract labour regulation and abolition act 1970 , Employment of Children act, Equal Remuneration act, 1976, Minimum Wages act 1948.

This case shows the workers condition at workplace as well the safety and health measures,  Social Security , child labour etc. The petitioner wrote a letter to Bhagwati J that letter was treated as public interest litigation and this case expanded the scope of article 32 by assuring people in the society as court belongs to everyone if violation of peoples beneficial rights as labour law is violated it to be treated as deprivation of fundamental rights.

This case, which resulted in a historic ruling, addresses the rights of workers with relation to minimum pay, working conditions in their locations, and workplace  safetymeasures. This act dealt with cases involving the Employment of Children Act, the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976, the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, and the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act of 1970.

This case illustrates the working conditions for employees as well as safety and health precautions, child labour, and Social Security.

In a letter addressed to Bhagwati J, the petitioner requested that the case be classified as public interest litigation. This case broadened the application of article 32 by guaranteeing that everyone in society would be treated equally in court if their beneficial rights under labour law were violated.

FACTS OF THE CASE :-

1. In 1982, India was set to host the Asian Games, which was a significant event for the country. The Government of India took responsibility for organizing the games, which involved building projects to meet international standards. The construction of infrastructure such as stadiums, hotels, swimming pools, and flyovers was necessary to reach these standards.
2. The Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Administration, and New Delhi Corporation were assigned the responsibility of construction by the government. These authorities then appointed contractors to carry out the construction projects under the terms of the Contract Labour Regulation and the Abolition Act of 1970, Section 7, acting as principal employers. The private contractors hired zamedars to oversee the construction and hired labourers from various states such as Orissa, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh.
3. The workers employed in the construction projects for the Asian Games faced several issues related to their wages and working conditions. Men were paid Rs. 9.25 per day, while women were paid only Rs. 7 per day, which was a violation of the Equal Remuneration Act.
4. Children under the age of 14 were also employed as labourers, which was a violation of the Child Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970. The zamedars openly withheld a commission of Rs. 1 from the workers’ wages, which was a violation of the Minimum Wages Act that fixed a daily wage of Rs. 9.25. The workers were only paid Rs. 8.25 per day for men after the deduction of the commission by the zamedars.
5. Apart from the issues related to wages, the workers also faced terrible working conditions that made them feel like they had a fever and had to work. They experienced gender discrimination at work, with the zamedars forcing employees to work beyond their working hours.
6. Children suffered from a lack of nutritious food and became malnourished, among many other horrifying acts of the zamedars. The workers lacked basic safety precautions, set working hours, adequate health care, and were pressured to complete the job as quickly as possible. In August 1981, the People’s Union Democratic Rights visited several construction sites and wrote a letter to Bhagwati J., which was stated as a PIL and case filed on November 16, 1981. The PIL was not against the employers but aimed to attain the labourers’ rights and avoid inequality and forced child labour.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the acts of workers violated if yes what are the acts violated ?
2. Whether PIL can be filed for enforcement of rights in such case?
3. Whether Article 21 of the constitution of India applies in this case is human dignity and right of livelihood essential in it or not ?
4. Whether the writ petition maintainable against private individuals under Article 32 of the Constitution of India?
5. Whether this petition violated workers ordinary rights under labour law rather than fundamental rights in constitution ?
6. Whether Article 24 was violated in the instant case?

PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Appellant submitted that  This case is valid under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as well as violation of statutory rights as well as fundamental rights can satisfy this writ petition .In this case Article 14 Right to Equality is not maintained due to unequal distribution of remuneration this discrimination violated the fundamental right of the Constitution of India so in this case Article 32 petition is applicable.
2. The Government of India entrusted the construction work of Asian games to the Delhi Administration, Delhi Development authority and Union of India those authorities assigned the above work to  employed contracts under Section 7 of Contract Labour act 1970 to the registered principle employers . . This contract recruited jamadar and they further assigned  those work to the workers with less wages the work divided among many people but  the contractors should be responsible  to follow the rules of labour. So PIL could be filed to enforce labor rights which are essential to the workers these rights been mentioned in Fundamental Rights so this writ can be filed.
3. This case is valid under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as well as violation of statutory rights as well as fundamental rights can satisfy this writ petition. In this case Article 14 Right to Equality is not maintained due to unequal distribution of remuneration this discrimination violated the fundamental right of the Constitution of India so in this case Article 32 petition is applicable.
4. The Government of India entrusted the construction work of Asian games to the Delhi Administration, Delhi Development authority and Union of India those authorities assigned the above work to  employed contracts under Section 7 of Contract Labour act 1970 to the registered principle employers. This contract recruited jamadar and they further assigned those work to the workers with less wages the work divided among many people but  the contractors should be responsible  to follow the rules of labour. So PIL could be filed to enforce labour rights which are essential to the workers these rights been mentioned in Fundamental Rights so this writ can be filed.
5. The acts involved in this case are violation of minimum wages act as employers hasn’t paid sufficient wages. So, This is right against exploitation under constitution of India .
6. The basic medical and safety measures were not taken this violates the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition act 1970.
7. This case violates Equal Remuneration act 1976 as mentioned mens and women’s were treated differently as of the men’s wages are Rs 8.25/- per day and  women’s wages are Rs 7/- per day the gender discrimination can be seen . So Article 14 of the constitution of India is violated.
8. The child below 14 years of age should not work under hazardous circumstances this violates Article 24 of constitution of India and Section 3 (3) of Employment of Children Act 1938.
9. As of Inter-state migrant workers(Regulation of Employment and conditions of service) at 1979 due to no medical care and safety to employees.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Respondent submitted that  Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this Writ petition and in this case, there was no violation of rights as the workers right it doesn’t relate to petitioner. So the petitioners can’t file this petition.
2. The workers whose rights are violated those are not related to the respondent as they were assigned by the contractors so respondent or not parties in this case.
3. No Writ petition to be filed for violation of workmen’s rights as their rights can be filed under statutory laws with different provisions in those acts. So, in this case  Writ petition can’t be filed  as there are no violation Fundamental Rights.
4. There was no complaint received regarding Child labour so the Section 3 (3) of Child employment act 1938 is not applicable in this case.
5. Jamadar deducted Rs 1/- from workers’ wages was clearly admitted by the Union of India.
6. The Inter-state Migrant Workers Act of 1979 was enforced on July 14, 1981, but the rules under this act were not finalized until June 4, 1982. This means that the act does not have a retrospective effect and therefore does not apply to the current case filed on November 16, 1981.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS :-

1. Article 32 and  Article 24 of the Constitution of India.
2. Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) act 1970.
3. Employment of Children act.
4. Equal Remuneration act, 1976.
5. Minimum Wages act 1948.
6. Inter-state migrant workers(Regulation of Employment and conditions of service) at 1979 .

JUDGEMENT (RATIO DECIDENDI)

1. The court extended the scope of Article 21 as humans have the Right to Life and Right with basic Human Dignity the various labour laws on the rights are part of human dignity. So this case violated the fundamental right the court upheld through this case if they violated the rights of labour they can knock the doors of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution of India to attain their rights as workers.
2. Article 23 forms of bonded labour due to unfavourable hardships in life the employees were forcing themselves to work for low wages this benefited to employers but those contractors doesn’t have choice  rather to work to led their life . So, court give Fundamental Rights to people to have the basic conditions to work in a safe environment with reasonable wages.
3. Article 24 deals with a child below 14 years of age can’t be employed if employed it violates the fundamental rights of the Constitution of India
4. The government can’t reduce their burden or escape by saying that they were not directly hired by the employers and it was responsible for contractors to facilitate basic needs and equality at the employees workplace .
5. The petitioners knocked the door of justice with the good and pure intention to fight for the worker’s rights so they have the locus standi to fight for workers’ rights. So, this case can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the violation of the fundamental rights.
6. Right to Equality is  violated as women and men not to be differentiated at paying of wages.
7. The court rejected respondent plea as there are violation of fundamental rights. So this Writ petition to be filed and rights violated in this case are Article 14, Article 17, Article 23 and Article 24 of the Constitution of India and many other acts related to workers rights.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The forced  labour has always been a problem in the past few decades this is only because the labourers worried on their lives as if they fight against the employers they might have lost this jobs they will become unemployed. So of it led their families suffer to prevent such the employees might face many atrocities at their workplace but they accept it without any fight to survive in the society. As the people with bona fide intention speaks on rights of workers in their favour or probably rare and great so such of them needed to be encouraged . The judgement favouring the rights of workers  raise the motivation to all the people to fight for their rights if those people are vulnerable then others can rise their voice against the injustice happening to that other rights. This can protect  so many peoples lives not only them but also to their families the judgement in this case is fully correct and I agree to their judgement.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India 1978 AIR 597

Keshavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala AIR 1973SC 1461

SP Gupta Vs Union of India  (1981) Supp SCC 87.

Important Statutes Referred

Constitution of India, Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) act 1970, Employment of Children act, Equal Remuneration act, 1976, Minimum Wages act 1948.