Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced (not only physical but social and economic reasons also) labour.
(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purpose, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India: [(1982) Also known as the Asiad Construction Workers case. Not even paid min remuneration as per Min Wages Act, 1948+ unequal distribution of income amongst men and women.
In Sanjit Ray v. State of Rajasthan,1983, the SC restricted the state from extracting labour by paying less than the minimum wages in the name of public utility services, considering such amounts to forced labour and is violative of article 23 of the constitution. Therefore, labour must be compensated with wages even when they are under law compelled to render service in the larger public interest.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,1984, the main issue concerned the existence of bonded labour in the Faridabad stone quarries near the city of Delhi. It was alleged that majority of the workers were compelled to migrate from other states, and turned into bonded labourers. The workers were living in sub-human and miserable conditions. A violation of various labour laws and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 was alleged.
In Neerja Choudhary v. State of MP,1984, the main issue in this case related to the effective rehabilitation of the released bonded labourers. The petitioners alleged that even after a lapse of a long time 135 labourers of the stone quarries were not rehabilitated. They further alleged that it was the obligation on the part of the state government to rehabilitate the bonded labourers according to the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 and it is the fundamental right of the bonded labourers under article 21 of the constitution. The petitioners therefore prayed for a direction to the state government to take steps for the economic and social rehabilitation of the labourers who were released from the shackles of bondage. The SC said that the plainest requirement of article 21, 23 that the bonded labourers must be identified and released and on release, they must be suitably rehabilitated.
State Of Gujarat And Another v. Hon'Ble High Court Of Gujarat ,1998
A delicate issue requiring very circumspective approach is mooted before us: Whether prisoners, who are required to do labour as part of their punishment should necessarily be paid wages for such work at the rates prescribed under Minimum Wages law. We have before us appeals filed by some State Governments challenging the judgments rendered by the respective High Courts which in principle upheld the contention that denial of wages at such rates would fringe on infringement of the constitutional protection against execution of forced labour. Shri Rajeev Dhawan, senior counsel put before us the view points of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) which favours the principle that prisoners should be paid wages at the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages law. Similar observation was initially made in Deena V UOI,1983.
Article 24: Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.
No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India: [(1982) Also known as the Asiad Construction Workers case. The Supreme Court held that though the Employment of Children Act, 1938 did not include the construction work on projects because the construction industry was not a process specified in the Schedule to the Act, yet, such construction was a hazardous occupation and under Art.24 children under 14 could not be employed in a hazardous occupation. The right of a child against exploitation under Art.24 was enforceable even in the absence of implementing legislation, and in a public interest proceeding
M.C.Mehta v. State of T.N.: [(1991) 1 SCC 283] The Supreme Court directed that children should not be employed in hazardous jobs in factories for manufacture of match boxes and fireworks, and positive steps should be taken for the welfare of such children as well as for improving the quality of their life.
M.C.Mehta v. State of T.N.(1996).Plight of children engaged in Sivakasi cracker factories. The Supreme Court directed that the employers of children below 14 years must comply with the provisions of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act providing for compensation, employment of their parents / guardians and their education. Guidelines laid down.
Bhandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [(1997) 10 SCC 549; AIR 1997 SC 2218]: This public interest litigation case (PIL) was filed via Article 32 of the Indian Constitution directly before the Supreme Court of India and petitioned the Court to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to take steps to end child labour. Thereafter a Court-appointed committee reported the enormity of child exploitation in UP’s carpet industry, finding that many children were kidnapped from Bihar, that the industry largely employed minor children under 14 years, and that many experienced physical abuse.
In its judgment, the Court discussed the importance of protecting children’s rights to education, health, and development in ensuring India’s progress as a democracy. While recognizing that child labor could not be abolished immediately due to economic necessity, the Court found that pragmatic steps could be taken to protect and promote the rights of children in the poverty-stricken and vulnerable populations of Indian society.
In support of its conclusion, the Court referred to various fundamental rights and directive principles of the Indian Constitution including, Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty), Article 24 (prohibits employment of children younger than 14 in factories, mines, or other hazardous industries), Article 39 (e) (prohibits forcing citizens into vocations unsuited for their age or strength), Article 39(f) (describes the State’s duties to protect children from exploitation and to ensure children the opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner), and Article 45 (mandates the State to provide free compulsory education for all children below 14 years).
The Court also noted India’s obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide free primary education for all children in the country, and to protect children against economic exploitation. The orders included, directing the States to take steps to frame policies to progressively eliminate the employment of children below the age of 14; provide compulsory education to all children employed in factories, mining, and other industries; ensure that the children receive nutrient-rich foods; and administer periodic health check-ups.
Gaurav Jain v Union of India, 1997, The Supreme Court held that the children of the prostitutes have the right to equality of opportunity, dignity, care, protection and rehabilitation so as to be part of the mainstream of social life without any pre-stigma attached on them. The Court directed for the constitution of a committee to formulate a scheme for the rehabilitation of such children and child prostitutes and for its implementation and submission of periodical report of its Registry.
In Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India, 2009 the Supreme Court observed directed that in the light of infrastructural constraint, the labour Department, Delhi has to commence implementing the Delhi Action Plan by accommodating for the time being about 500 children every month. The Court observed that the Delhi Action Plan lays down a detailed procedure for interim care and protection of the rescued children to be followed by Labour Department as prepared by the National Commission with the modifications mentioned in the judgment and directed the authorities concerned to immediately implement the same.
In another important case Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2011, the Supreme Court of India has taken up the issues of children working in the circus and instructed the government to prohibit the employment of children in the circus business.
The central legislature of India had promulgated a legislation Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (“CL Act”) to regulate the child labour practices in India. The central legislature has made substantial changes in the provisions of the CL Act in the year 2016 and the said amendments have been made effective from July 30, 2016. Pursuant to the said amendment the name of the CL Act has been changed to ‘Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 1986’.
A complete prohibition has been imposed on employment of child labour (i.e. a person below the age of 14 years) in any establishment whether hazardous or not. A child is permitted to work only to help family, in family enterprise or as child artist after school hours or during vacations. The amendment has introduced the concept of adolescent labour for the first time. An adolescent has been defined as a person between the ages of 14-18 years. The amendment permit employment of adolescent labour except in hazardous processes or occupation. The number of hazardous occupations and processes has been reduced from 83 to only 3. The offences under the Act have now been made compoundable and cognizable notwithstanding the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The CL Act provides for rehabilitation of children and adolescent who have been victims under the provisions of the CL Act. It provides for setting up of the Child and Adolescent Labour Rehabilitation Fund in which all the amounts of penalty have to be realised. Liability has been affixed upon the parents and guardian of the affected child/children separately from the employers. The Act provides for increased penalty and imprisonment which shall not be less than 6 months and may extend upto 2 years and fine which may vary between Rs.20, 000 to Rs. 50,000. Previously, the violations under the CL Act were punishable with imprisonment of not less than three months which could extend to one year or/and with fine of ten thousand rupees which could extend to twenty thousand rupees.
Comments