Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India

Manvi Jain

Citation: AIR 1984 SCC 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
Petitioner: Bandhua Mukti Morcha
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 16 December, 1983
Bench: Hon’ble Justice N. Bhagwati; Hon’ble Justice S. Pathak; Hon’ble Justice Amarnath Sen
FACTS –
• The petitioner Bandhua Mukti Morcha is a non-governmental organization that works for the welfare of individuals. When they were conducting the survey, they found some stone quarries in Faridabad where the workmen were in extreme conditions. The operating conditions there were unsanitary and unsuitable for these staff who had come back from completely different parts of the country to work here. The petitioner wrote a letter to Justice Bhagwati concerning the workplace and working conditions of these workmen. This letter was taken as a judicial writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution and a commission was created to enquire regarding the allegations placed forth by the petitioner. The commission verified the allegations to be correct and there was also the infringement of the rights of the labourers.
• He additionally documented in the letter the names of the stone quarries and points of interest of workers who were functioning as fortified workers and implored that a judicial writ is given for legitimate usage of the various provisions of the welfare enactment, for instance, Mines Act, 1952 Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, bonded labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Minimum Wages Act, Workmen's Compensation Act, Payment of Wages Act, Employees State Protection Act, Maternity Benefits Act so forth material to those labourers operating within the aforesaid stone quarries to finish the wretchedness, suffering, and defencelessness of those casualties of the cruelest abuse. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition and designated a commission to raise the charges created by the petitioner.


ISSUES CONCERNED -
• Whether the judicial writ petition filed beneath Article 32 of the constitution is valid or not.
• Can a letter tended to with this Court be treated as a writ appeal and with none checked request this Court is often moved to follow its writ locale?
• Whether any fundamental right of the employee was violated or not.
• Whether the Supreme Court is authorized to appoint any commission or investigation body underneath Article 32 of the constitution or not.
• Whether the workmen mentioned in the case are bonded labourers or not
• Whether workmen within the present case are entitled to relief underneath numerous social labour legislations or not.

LAW CONCERNED –
• Bonded Labour System Act,1976
• Mines Rules 1955
• Mines Vocational Training Rules 1966
• Maternity Benefit Act 1961
• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
New pointers laid down during this case was that not solely the alleged person for his right will file a case however additionally by alternative with the bonafide intention on protecting the interest of the aggrieved party and also that mere letter can even be treated as a writ under article 32 when it involves the general public interest for the advantage of the public.

JUDGEMENT –
The Supreme Court found the petition true and so gave directions to the govt. of Haryana, the Central Government, and different body authorities as follows:
• The government of Haryana within six weeks of the judgment shall represent a vigilance committee in every division of district to confirm compliance beneath Section 13 of the bonded Labour Act, 1976.
• The government of Haryana can appoint a district functionary to identify the bonded labour as per the law.
• The government conjointly needs to take the assistance of NGOs and different voluntary agencies to confirm the implementation of the Bonded Labour Act, 1976.
• Pragmatic, constructive, and realistic steps and actions are required to be taken to change the children belonging to the poor and thus the weaker sections of the society, along with Dalits, social group, and minorities to be ready to relish their childhood and develop their full blossomed personality- educationally, intellectually and culturally, enjoying the spirit of inquiry, reform, and leisure.
• Whenever anyone is lawfully or illicitly denied and deprived of his liberty, it's open for that person to move court beneath Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for he unleashes.
• The court relied on the judgment of S.P. Gupta v Union of India and held that although no fundamental right of the petitioner could have been infringed, however, the petitioner who complains of such violation happening might succeed by the manner of Public Interest legal proceeding.
• Although beneath Article 32, the right to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an acceptable proceeding is warranted, Article 32 or the other provision of the Constitution of India doesn't lay down any specific procedure to be followed by this Court. Procedural laws conjointly form a part of the law and have to be compelled to be determined but are, however, subservient to the substantive law. The fundamental rights secured beneath the Constitution are too sacred and vital to be unnoticed, just on the idea of technical grounds of the procedural laws. Therefore, if the court is satisfied by the material placed before it, be it in any kind, together with a letter or the other sort of communication, it should mark the same as a writ petition.
• The Court further ascertained that Article 32(2) of the Constitution of India empowers the Court to create any directions, writs, or orders for the hindrance of the fundamental rights of each individual. The Hon'ble Court found the article given before is sufficiently wide enough to appoint the investigative commission additionally as to appoint lawyers for the poor and burdened who aren't within the financial situation to stand for his or her rights and fight for them.
• Lastly, the Court saw that there are several rights given to those who belong to the backward sections of the society, by statute, that need to be enforced as desperately and smartly as the fundamental rights.
• For the preceding reasons, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

SIGNIFICANCE –
• The judgment delivered by the three-bench judge of the Supreme Court together with Justice Bhagwati, Justice Sen, and Justice Pathak was correct in my views. As treating mere a letter as the writ was correct as immediate action on the matter. And also, the filling of the case by the opposite party in the palace of the aggrieved party is additionally correct because the aggrieved party doesn't have enough resources to file the case and fight their case. As they're already sacrificing to survive in this world than to afford the additional load of paying the legal fees wasn't attainable for them. Also, the direction to the priority central officers to require around once a week and to the inspector to take around daily every night to check the case of labour within the mines or stone quarries was correct as per law or not. Also, the creation of a separate committee below the central labour ministry to check the implementation of central laws associated with labourers like Mines Act, vocational training Act, and thereon.
• In end, it is aforesaid that the overall judgment it may be said that the judgment was acceptable and as per the case demanded.