The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Bandhua Mukti Morcha, recognizing violations of bonded labor rights at stone quarries in Faridabad, and ordered the government to take various measures for worker welfare, including setting up vigilance committees, ensuring proper wages, and providing medical facilities. The court emphasized that public interest matters allow for procedural flexibility, enabling letters to be treated as writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. This landmark decision aims to improve living and working conditions for laborers and enforce compliance with existing welfare laws.

1. Bhararti Vidhyapeeth Deemed University
New Law College, pune
Submitted by: Rahul Gaur

2. Supreme Court of India
Bandhua Mukti Morcha
VERSUS
Union of India
Decided on December 16,1983
AIR 1984 SCC 802
Bench- 3 Judge Bench
1. Justice P.N.Bhagwati
2. Justice R.S..Pathak
3. Justice Amarendra Nath Sen
Writ Petition Number 2135 of 1982
FACTS OF THE CASE
 The petitioner Bandhua Mukti Morcha, is an NGO dedicated for the welfare
of the labourers.
 While conducting a survey the petitioner found some stone quarries in
Faridabad near the city of Delhi where there was extreme situations of
workmen, as they are forced to come and work from different states of the
country and their health was becoming poorand poorer day by day due to
extreme polluted working conditions.
 On the basis of the survey, petitioner wrote a letter to the Justice Bhagwati
on 25th February 1982 stating:-
1. The mines belong to Shri S.L.Sharma in Faridbad disrtrict, Harayana.

3. 2. Their were large number of laborer from different states of the country
and were working under inhuman and intolerable conditions.
3. Most of them were bonded labourer.
4. The laws related to welfare of the labourer were not implemented.
5. Petitioner also stated the particulars of labourer and prayed that a writ be
issued for the proper implementation of the various provisions of the
social welfare laws such as mines act 1952, contract labor act 1970, etc.
 The court treated the said letter as a writ petition under article 32 of the
Indian constitution and on 26th February 1982 appointed a commission made
up of Mr Ashok Shrivastav and Mr Ashok Panda to enquire into the
allegations made by the petitioner.
 The commission proves the allegations correct, in its report dated 2nd march
1982 as follows:
1. The environment in the stone quarries was full of dust and it was difficult
for anyone to breathe.
2. Some of the workers were not allowed to leave the stone quarries.
3. There was no facility for providing drinking water to the workmen.
4. The laborer do not have propershelter, they were living in Jhuggies made
of piled stones and straws.
5. There was no proper compensation given to the labourer who was injured
in an accident while working.
6. There was no medical facilities or schooling available to their children.
Issues Involved
1. Whether writ petition filed under art 32 of the constitution is valid in
nature or not?
2. Whether any fundamental right of the worker was actually violated or
not?
3. Whether Supreme Court is empowered to appoint any commission or
investigating bodyunder article 32 of the constitution or not?
4. Whether the workmen mentioned in the present case are bonded labor
or not?
5. Whether workmen in the present case entitled to relief under various
social welfare and labor legislations or not?

4. JUDGEMENT
The court find the petition true and they agree that their was bonded laborer
in the stone quarries and also that all the other facts stated in the report and
petition.
The court gives direction to the government of Haryana, central government
and other administrative authorities as follows:
 The government of Haryana will within 6 weeks of the judgment date
will constitute a vigilance committee in each division of district to
ensure compliance under section 13 of the Bonded labour act,1976,
taking in consideration guidelines laid down by the court.
 The government of Haryana will appoint a district Magistrate to
identify the bonded labour as per the law and the magistrate also has
to key point the areas where bonded labour is practiced.
 The state government also has to take the help of non-political groups
and voluntary agencies to ensure implementation of the Bonded
labour system act,1976.
 The government of Haryana has to within 3 months of the judgment
has to re-habitat the bonded labourers.
 Both the central and the state government has to together ensure the
implementation of the minimum wages act.
 The concernofficers of the central government has to carry out
surprise check at least once a weak to ensure that the trucks ore not
loaded beyond their true capacity and if it is found to take appropriate
actions as per law.
 The Haryana government will ensure the payment of wages directly
to the workmen by mine lassoers and stone crushers owners time to
time.
 The central board of workers education will organize camps
periodically to educate the workers of their rights and benefits given
to them by law.

5.  The central and Haryana government has to immediately take steps to
ensure that stone crusher owners do not continue to exploit air and
they use these two devises:
1. Keeping a drum of water upon the stone crusher machine which
continuously sprays water upon it.
2. A dust sucking machine
 Both central and state government has to ensure that the workers in stone
quarries, crushing and mines are getting at least 2 liters of drinking water
daily.
 The mine owners and stone crusher owners has to obtain water from
unpolluted sources and transport it by tankers to the worksite.
 The state government must ensure that properconservancy facilities like
latrines and urinals are provided to the labourers as per section 20 of mines
act 1952 and rule 32 to 36 of mines rules 1955 and they were to be provided
by 15th February 1984.
 To ensure appropriate and adequate medical facilities to workers according
to section 21 of the Mines act 1952 and rule 40 to 45A of the mines rule
1955.
 To ensure propertraining to workers as per Mines vocational training
rules,1966.
 Benefit under the maternity benefit act 1961.
 If any workman receives injury or contracts any disease in the course if his
employment, then the concern mine owner has to take him to the chief
inspector or the inspecting officers as to provide him properlegal aid.
 The concerned officer has to visit the quarries once in every fortnight.
 If both central and Haryana government fails to ensure obligations under
clauses 11,12,13,14 and 15 by the mine lessees specified period given in
clauses, then they has to be performed by the state or central government.
 The supreme court appointed Mr Laxmi Bharmisra Joint Secretary in the
ministry of lobour, government of India as a commissioner to find out and
prepare the list of labourer who are bonded. To find out that how many
labourers wants to leave the district, to ensure the proper wages to workers
and to ensure that all the directions given by the court are fulfilled or not.

6. Reasoning for the Judgment
 On the issue of procedural infirmities, the court held that in the instant case,
a letter can be treated as a writ petition under article 32. The court held that
when in matters of public interests, when the oppressed parties are unable to
afford legal aid, procedural flexibility shall be permitted.
 On the issue of fundamental right violation the court held that it is violating
of their rights under article 21 as to survive proper water and environment in
needed.
 On the issue of power of Supreme Court to appoint commission under article
32 is stated that in the cases where public interest and public welfare is
needed the Court can appoint any commission.
 On the issue of workmen being bonded labour the Supreme Court held it to
be true and also guided government of Haryana as to ensure the rehebritation
of such bonded labourers.
 On the issue of workmen entitled to certain reliefs under social welfare and
legal aid the Supreme Court held it to be right and guided all the mine
owners as to provide propermedical, schooling and drinking water facilities
to the workmen.
Legal Principals
The laws involved in the case are as follows:
1. Bonded Labour System Act,1976
2. Mines Rules 1955
3. Mines Vocational Training Rukes 1966
4. Maternity Benefit Act 1961
5. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution
New guidelines laid down in this case was that not only the alleged personfor his
right can file a case but also by other with the bonafide intention as to protect the

7. interest of aggrieved party and also that mere letter can also be treated as a writ
under article 32 when it comes to the public interest r for the benefit of the public.
Comment
The judgment delivered by the three bench judge of Supreme Court including of
Justice Bhagwati, Justice Sen and Justice Pathak was correctin my views. As
treating mere a letter as writ was correct as to immediately act upon the problem.
And also the filling of caseby the other party in palace of aggrieved party is also
correct as the aggrieved party don’thave enough resources to file the caseand
fight their case. As they are already sacrificing to survive in this world and then to
afford the extra load of paying the legal fees was not possible for them. Also the
direction to the concerncentral officers to take round once in a week and to the
inspector to take a round daily every night as to check the situation of labour in the
mines or stone quarries was correct as per law or not. Also the making of separate
committee under central labour ministry as to check the implementation of central
laws related to labourers such as Mines Act, Vocational Training Act and so on.
In end it can be said that the overall judgment it can be said that the judgment was
appropriate and as per the situation demanded.