People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 18 September 1982 · 2 judges · 1982 AIR 1473; 1983 SCR (1) 456; 1982 SCC (3) 235
In a public interest petition on Asiad construction workers, the Court upheld the petitioners' standing, held the State bound as principal employer to enforce labour laws, and held that work below minimum wage is forced labour under Article 23.
Facts
The first petitioner, an organisation for protecting democratic rights, wrote to Bhagwati, J. on the basis of a report by three social scientists on the conditions of workers on the Asian Games construction projects in Delhi. The letter was treated as a writ petition against the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority. It alleged that workers recruited through jamadars received less than the minimum wage of Rs. 9.25 a day because the jamadars deducted Re. 1, that women were paid less, that children under 14 were employed, and that the Contract Labour Act, the Inter State Migrant Workmen Act and other labour laws were violated. The Union of India admitted the deduction. The respondents objected to the petitioners' standing and to maintainability under Article 32.
Questions before the Court
- Did the petitioners have locus standi to bring a writ petition on behalf of the workers?
- Could the writ petition lie against the Union of India and the other authorities when the workers were employed by contractors, and did the complaints involve breach of fundamental rights?
- Does payment of less than the minimum wage amount to 'forced labour' under Article 23?
What the Court held
- Where persons wronged cannot approach the Court because of poverty or social or economic disadvantage, any member of the public acting bona fide may seek redress for them, even by letter. The petitioners therefore had standing.
- As principal employers, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority are bound to ensure that contractors observe the labour laws, and the workers have a cause of action against them.
- Employing children under 14 in construction, a hazardous employment, violates Article 24; breach of the Equal Remuneration Act engages Article 14; denial of benefits under the Contract Labour and Inter State Migrant Workmen Acts violates Article 21. Articles 17, 23 and 24 are enforceable against private persons, and the State must prevent their violation.
- Article 23 abolishes every form of forced labour, paid or unpaid. 'Force' includes compulsion of economic circumstances, so labour provided for less than the minimum wage is forced labour, and the worker may ask the Court to direct payment of the minimum wage.
- The Court confirmed its earlier order that the minimum wage be paid directly to workers without deduction by jamadars, and appointed ombudsmen to inspect compliance.
Why it matters
The judgment states the basis of public interest litigation: relaxed standing for those acting bona fide for the poor, and letters treated as writ petitions. It gives Article 23 a wide reading, holding that 'forced labour' covers labour extracted by economic compulsion, including work at less than the minimum wage, and declares that Articles 17, 23 and 24 operate against private persons, with the State bound to ensure their observance.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“But the traditional rule of standing which confines access to the judicial process only to those to whom legal injury is caused or legal wrong is done has now been jettisoned by this Court and the narrow confines within which the rule of standing was imprisoned for long years as a result of inheritance of the Anglo-Saxon System of jurisprudence have been broken”
“Every form of forced labour 'begar' or otherwise, is within the inhibition of Article 23 and it makes no difference whether the person who is forced to give his labour or service to another is remunerated or not. Even if remuneration is paid, labour supplied by a person would be hit by this Article if it is forced labour, that is, labour supplied not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion.”
“The word 'force' must therefore be constructed to include not only physical or legal force but also force arising from the compulsion of economic circumstance which leaves no choice of alternatives to a person in want and compels him to provide labour or service even though the remuneration received for it is less than the minimum wage”
“We are therefore of the view that where a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words 'forced labour' under Article 23.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 23, Constitution
- Article 24, Constitution
- Article 21, Constitution
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 32, Constitution
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948
- Sections 16 to 20, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
- Sections 14 to 18, Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979
Related judgments
- Follows Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)“It does not accord with the principle enunciated by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(2) that when interpreting the provisions of the Constitution conferring fundamental rights, the attempt of the court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the fundamental rights” (page 25)
- Followed in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1983)
- Followed in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000)
Case and bench
- Parties
- People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India & Others
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 8143 of 1981
- Decided
- 18 September 1982
- Bench
- Bhagwati, P.N., Islam, Baharul (J)
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhagwati, J., giving reasons for the Court's order of 11 May 1982.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.