1982 (9) TMI 242 - SC - Indian Laws

Court confirms standing in public interest case, holds principal employers liable for labor law compliance. Upholding labor rights.

People's Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The Court upheld the locus standi of the petitioners in a public interest litigation, emphasizing access to justice for the disadvantaged. It ruled that ... - Issues Involved:1. Locus Standi of the Petitioners2. Contractors' Obligation under Labour Laws3. Violation of Fundamental Rights4. Enforcement of Labour Laws5. Payment of Minimum Wage6. Employment of Children7. Observance of Equal Remuneration Act8. Implementation of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act9. Judicial Attitude towards Labour Law ViolationsDetailed Analysis:1. Locus Standi of the Petitioners:The first preliminary objection raised was regarding the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the writ petition. The Court emphasized that the traditional rule of standing has been relaxed to allow public interest litigation (PIL) to bring justice within the reach of the poor and disadvantaged. The Court held that any member of the public acting bona fide may move the Court for judicial redress of the legal injury or wrong suffered by such person or class of persons. The petitioners, being an organization dedicated to protecting fundamental rights, had the locus standi to maintain the writ petition.2. Contractors' Obligation under Labour Laws:The second preliminary objection argued that the workmen were employees of the contractors and not of the respondents (Union of India, Delhi Administration, and Delhi Development Authority). The Court rejected this, stating that the principal employers (respondents) are liable under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, to ensure that the contractors comply with the provisions of these laws. The principal employers must ensure the observance of labour laws by the contractors.3. Violation of Fundamental Rights:The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 32 as it complained of breaches of fundamental rights, including Article 24 (prohibition of child labour), Article 14 (equality before law), and Article 21 (right to life with dignity). The Court also interpreted Article 23 (prohibition of forced labour) to include situations where workmen are paid less than the minimum wage, as such conditions amount to forced labour due to economic compulsion.4. Enforcement of Labour Laws:The Court emphasized the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure the observance of fundamental rights by private individuals. It held that the Union of India, Delhi Administration, and Delhi Development Authority are under an obligation to ensure that contractors comply with labour laws. The Court directed the respondents to take necessary legal action against contractors violating these laws.5. Payment of Minimum Wage:The Court found that the workers were not receiving the minimum wage of Rs. 9.25 per day as jamadars were deducting Rs. 1 per day as commission. The Court directed that the minimum wage must be paid directly to the workers without any deductions by the jamadars. The Court suggested that future contracts should include provisions ensuring direct payment to workers without any deductions.6. Employment of Children:The Court noted that the Employment of Children Act, 1938, did not apply to the construction industry, which was a deplorable omission. However, the Court held that Article 24 of the Constitution, which prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous employment, applies proprio vigore to construction work. The respondents were directed to ensure compliance with this constitutional mandate.7. Observance of Equal Remuneration Act:The petitioners alleged that women workers were paid less than men, violating the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976. The Court held that the principle of equality under Article 14 must be observed, and the respondents were responsible for ensuring compliance by the contractors.8. Implementation of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act:The Court criticized the delay in the enforcement of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. It directed that the provisions of this Act must be enforced to ensure the rights and benefits of migrant workmen.9. Judicial Attitude towards Labour Law Violations:The Court expressed shock at the imposition of meager fines by Magistrates for violations of labour laws. It emphasized that violations of labour laws must be viewed with strictness and adequate punishment should be imposed to ensure compliance.Conclusion:The Court's judgment reinforced the importance of public interest litigation in ensuring justice for the poor and disadvantaged. It underscored the obligations of principal employers to ensure compliance with labour laws by contractors and highlighted the constitutional mandate to protect fundamental rights, including the right to minimum wage and prohibition of child labour. The judgment also called for stricter judicial attitudes towards violations of labour laws.