. BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS·

themselves in the main stream of civilised human society and realise A 'the dignity, beauty and wor.th of human existence. The process· of identification and release of bonded labourers is a process of disco- .very and transformat.lon. of non-beings into human-beings and what it involves is eloquently described in the beautiful lines of Rabindra Nath Tagore ·in "Kadi and Koma!" · . I B 'Into the mouths of these · . Dumb, ·pale and meal<; , We have to infuse the language o(the soul. Into the hearts of these · Weary and worn, dry and forlorn We have to minstrel the language 'of humanity.' c This Process of discovery and transformation poses a serious problem since the social and· economic milieu in which it has to be accomplished is dominated by elements hositle to it. But this pro- blem has 'to be solved if we want to emancipate those who are living " in bonda&e and serfdom and make them equal ·participants in the fruits of freedom and liberty. It is a··problem which needs urgent attention of the Government'oflndia and the State Governments and when the Directive Principles of State Policy ·have obligated the Central.and the State Governments'to'take steps and adopt measures for the purp3se of ensuring social justice to .the have-notes and the handicapped, it is not right on the part of the.concerned governments to shut their eyes to the inhuman exploitation to which the bonded labourers are subjected. It is not ·uncommon to find that the adminis- tration in some States is not willing to admit the existence of bonded labour, even though it exists in their territory and there is incontrover- ·""' tible evidence that it does so exist . We fail to see why the adminis- tration should .feel shy in admitting the existence of bonded labour, bequseit is not the existence of bonded labour that is a slur on the administration but its failure to take note of it and to take all ~eces­ sary steps for the purpose of putting an end to the bonded labour system by quickly identifying, reloasing and permanently rehabilitat- ing bonded, labourers. What is needed is determination, dynamism and a sens; of social commitment of the part of the administration to· G free bonded labourers ·and rehabilitate them and wipe out this ugly inhuman practice which is a blot on our national life. . What happend recently in the Ranga Reddy District of Andrha Pradesh as a result , of the initiative taken by' this Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 1574 of 1982 and 54 of 1983 sbows clearly that if the political and administra- H tive apparatus has a sense of commitment to the constitutional values

94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R.

A and is determined to take action for identifying, rel~asing and rebabi~ litating bonded labourers despite pres.sures and pulls from different quarters, much can be done for securing emancipation and rehabilita- tion· of bonded labourers.' . The District .Administration of Ranga · Reddy District could in less than six months release over 3000 bonded labourers from the 'clutches of contractors in ·stone quarries in Ranga B Reddy District and send them back to their ho.mes. with tickets and pocket expenses. • It is therefore essent.ial thai whichever be the. State Government it should, where there is bonded labour, admit the existence of such bonded labour and make; all possible efforts .to eradicate it-. By doing so, it will · not· only be performing a humanitarian function but also discharging a constitutional obliga- c tion .and strengthening the foundations ·of participatory democracy in the country . ·

We also find that in some cases the State Governments in order - • to shi'rk their obligation, take shelter under the plea that there may be some forced labour in their State but that is not bonded labour." We D shall have occasion to deal with this plea a little later 'when we refer to the definition of 'bonded labour' given in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act; 1976 which it! first blush appears to be a narrow definition limited only to a situation where a debtor'is forced ·10 pro- vide labour to a creditor. The ·state of Haryana has iil the present case tried to. quibble with this definition of 'bonded labour' and its E .arg·ument has been that these ,labourers may be ·providing. forced lab~ur but they are not bonded labourers within the meaning of the Bonded Labour Systein (Abolition) Act, 1976 and they may therefore be freed by the Court if it so pleases but the State of Haryana cannot be ·compelled to .rehabilitate them. We are cmi:strained to observe. that this agrument, quite apart ·from its .invalidity, ill-behoves a r F State Government which is committed to the cause of socialism.and ·claims to be striving to e~sure social justice to the vulnerable ~seciions of the community. But we. do not wish to anitcipate the discussion . in regard to this argument and at the present stage we content ourselves by m~rely observing that it is unfortunate that any State Go.vernmerit shauld take up the plea that persons ·who are forced to proyided labour. G miy .be forced. labourers but unless it is shown by them by proper evidence tested by CT<Jss-examination that they are forced to prqvide." . labour against a bonded debt, tbey cannot be said to be bonded·labour- ers and the State Government cannot beheld to be under any 'obliga~ ti01J.to rehabilitate them. H ' The· p~titioner made a survey or'some of the stbne q~arries in

BANDHUA MUJCTI MORCHA \'. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) ' 95

FAridabad district near the city bf· Deijii and found that there were A a large number of labourers from Maharashtra, .· Madhya Pradesh, · Uttar Pradesh and Rajas.than who were working in these stone quarries nuder "inhuman and intolerable conditions'" and many of whom were b;inded labourers: The petitioner therefore addressed a letter to one of us Oil 25th February, 1982 pointing out that in the miries of · Shri S.L. Sharma, Gnrukula Indra Prastha, Post Amar Nagar, B Faridabad, District, a iarge number of labourers were languishing under abject conditions of bondage forlast about. ten years, and the pe.titioner gave the names of 11 bonded laboqrers who were from village Asarha, Bariner distriCt of Rajasthan, 7 bonded· labourers who were from village Bharol, district ·Jhansi of Madhya. Pradesh

- and 23 bonded labourers who were from village Barodia, Bhanger, Tehsil Khurai, district Sagar, M.P. The petitioner pointed out that there were ')'et another 14 .bonded labourer.s fro in Lalitpur in U.P .". The petitioner also annexed to its letter, ~tatemen.ts in eriginal bearing .the thumb marks or .signatures as the ·case may be of these bonded c

lab;mrers referred to in the letter. 'rbe petitioner pointed out in. the letter that the labourers~ working in these stone quarries were living D ·under the most inhuman conditions. and their pitiable lot.was described .by the. petitioner in the. f?llowing words·:

"Besides these cases of bonded labour, there. are in- numerable cases of fatal and serious injuries caused due to --~- , ac~idents while working in the ·mines, while dynamiting E the tocks or while crushing· the stones. The stone-dust pol)ution near the stone crushers. is s.o various· that.many a· · valuable' lives are lost due to tuberoculosi~ while others are . "\ reduced to mere.skeletons because ofT.B. and other diseases . . The ;vorkers are. not provided with any medical care, what to "'""" speak of compensating the poor worker for injury or for F ~ death. No cas,s a'.re· registered against the mine 6wners or' the lessees for violation of safety rules unaer Mines Act. ., We are enclosing herewith the statements of about 75 workers who have suffered or are suffering continuously due to non-implementation of the rules by the Central Govern- • . ment or by.Haryana Government or by the employers. ·. . . ' G Almost 99 % of the workers are' migr~nt from drought prone areas of Rajasthan, Madhya.Pradesh; Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra and Bihar. But if there is any on.e place where the Central legislation of Inter State -Migrant H W6rkmens Act 1979 is being most .flagrantly violated it is •

96 SUPR~ME COURT REPORTS (1984] 2 S.C.R.

A here in these mines, without any residential accommodation, with the name-not eve~ a thatched roof to fend against the icy 'Yinds and winter rain or against the ·scorching heat in mindsummer, ·with scanty clothing, with very impure and polluted drinking water accumulated during rainy season in the clitches, with absolutely no facilities for scliooling or·· B childcare, braving al! the hazards of nature and pollution . theS<I th~usands ·of. sons and "and illtreatment, . daughters of Mother India ~pitomise: the "Wretched of the Earth". ' On top of all these forms of exploitation is the totally illegal system of "Thekedars", middlemen who extract 30 % c - of the poor miner's .wages as their ill ·gotten commission (Rs. 20 out of Rs. 60, wages for per truck load of stone ballast). The trucks are invariably oversign«d in some cases th~y doubt the prescribed size of 150 Sq. feet but payment remains the same.. The hills are dotted with liquor vends-legal and illegal. Murders ana molestation of women is very common." D The petitioner also set out the various provisions of the Con- . stitution and the statutes which were not being implemented or observed . in regard to the labourers working in ihese stone quarries. .The petitioner in the end prayed that a writ be issued for proper imple- . mentation of these provisions of the Constitution and statutes with a· E view to ending the misery, suffering and helpless~ess of "these vie-, ,\- ti'!ls of most inhuman exploitation". ·

The letter dated 25th February 1982 addressed by the petitioner was treated as a writ p~tition and by an order dated 26th February 1982 this Court issued notice on the writ petition and appointed two f ( ~

F advocates, nainely, M/s. Asliok Srivastava and Ashok Panda as commissioners to visit the stone qua:rries of Shri S.L. Sharma in Godhokhor (Anangpur) and Lakkarpur in Faridabad district and to ,. interview each of the persons whose names were mentioned in the letter of the petitioner as also a" cross section of the either workers

G with a view to finding out whether they are willingly working in these ' stone quarries and also to inquire about the conditions in which they are working. M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda were directed .. to.visit these stone quarries on 27th and 28th February 1982 'and to make a.report to this Court on or before 2nd March 1982. Pursuant to. this order made by us, M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda H visited. the stone quarries of S.L. Shrma in Godhokhor and Lakkarpur ~'and carried out the assignment entrusted to them and submitted a "' •

BANDHUA MlJKTl MORCHA •· UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 97 .. • report to this Court on 2nd March J982. • The Report pointed oil! A inter alia that i11 the stone quarries of S.L. Sharma at Godhakhpur, "m1ny stone'. crushing machines were operating with the result that . th' whole atmosphere was full of dust and it was difficult even to. breathe". The report then referred to the statements of various 'workers interviewed by Mis. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Pan.da a11d according t~ 'the statements given by some of. them, namely, B Lalu Ram, Dalla Ram, Thakur Lal, Budh Ram, Harda, Mahadev, Smt. Shibban, Hardev, Anam,·Punnu, Ghanshyam, Randhir and Mute, they were not allowed to leave the stone quarries and ·were pro- viding forced labour and they did not have even pure water to drink bu't wore compolled in most cases to drink dirty water frpm anal/ah

' and w're living in Jhuggics with stones piled one upon the other as c walls and stra\V covering at the top, which did' not afford any protec- tion against sun and rain. and which were so low that a person could hardly stand insrde them. The statements of these workers showed that a few of them ,vere suffering from tuberculosis and even when injuries were caused due to accidents arising in the ·course of employment, no compensation was being i1aid to them and there were no facilities for medical treatment or schdoling for children. The Report proceeded to state' that M/s. 'Ashok Srivastava· and Ashok' Panda then Visited_ 1nine_ no·. 8 in Godhokhor Bione quarries-and here they found· that the. condition of the jhuggies was much worse in- a<much as the jhuggies were made only of straw and most of the people living in jhuggies had no clothes lo wear~and were shivering from cold and even the small children were moving about without any proj)oer clothing. M/s.• Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda found that

' •• ' none of the inmates of the jhuggies had any blanket or wollen clothes and they did not even have any mat on which they could sleep. The statem,nts of Phool Chand, Babu Lal, Bhoolu, Karaya, Ram Bahadur and Salt'u also showed that alhhese workers were bonded labourers who were not. allowed to. leave the stone quarries and one' of them, F n,am,ly, Sallu was seriously injured on his left·Jeg only a day before the visit of M/s. Ashok Sri\>astava and Ashol': Panda but be did not hop_, to get ari'y co·1nµensation "because here ilo one gets any co.n 1rn1sation for any injury''. Most of the workers interviewed 'by M/s. Ash0k Srivastava and Ashok Panda stated that they got very little G by way of \Vage·s fro1n ti1e mi.ne lessees or owners of" stone crushers· since they .had to purchase explosives with their own m011eys and they had to incur other e~penses which, according to Dr. Patwardhan's repJrt to which we .shall refer :hereafter, inCluded 50 per cent of the expenses of drilling holes.· M/s .. Ashok Srivastava .and Ashok Panda H also pointed out in the Report that the folJo,ving persons working

98 SUPREME.COURT REPORTS [19S4] 2 S.c.R.

A in the Godhokhor ~tone quarries" claimetl t~at they were tcn<lcd . labourers :

(!) Chand Bahadur. son of Hastbir (2) Lal Bahadur sen of Umbar .Bahadur (3) Chhotey Lal sol) of Jarau (4) Harak Bahadur ·.son of Jeet. Bahadur (5) Gopal Bahadur ·sort of Jliahu Sin~h B (6) Roop Singh son of Govinda (7) Medh Bahadur son of Aspteir (8) Jiddey Bahadur son of· Nunbahadur (9) Phool. Baha<lur sen of Ram Bahadur (10) Heera Bahadur ·son .of Balbahadur (JJ) Veer 'Bahadur son of Chhalvir. (12) Nain Singh son of Lal Baliadur (I 3) Lal Bahadur son of Gang Bahaciur (14). Ganesh son of Gang PahPdur . (15) Amber Bahadur son of Sadhu Ba.hadur (I 6) Hira ta! sen·· of .C · .: Atbahadur (17) l(amar Bahadur (18) ~agadh Bahadur sol) of Tep BQhadur (19) Gajender Bahadur son of Shyam ta! (20) Ganga Ram. son of Lal Bai1adur. (21) Nar .Bahadur .and (22) Sant. Bahadpr son of Bhag Bahadur .

.So .far as the workers working h1 La'kkarptir .stone quarnrs D were concerned, .. the report of M/s. Ashok Sriyastava and Ashck • ·Panda stated that out of about 250 persons living in st:raw j!rngrirc . .. 100. persons hailed from· Bilaspur while 150 persons telongcd to .Allah~bad and according to the rep.or!, 100. persons coming from . Bilas.pur stated that they were forcibly kept by the co11tractcr. a1'd they were not allowed to move out ofthelr place and.tl1ey were bonded· .E . labourers. M/s. Asliok Srivastava and Asho.k Panda described iii ·the Report the pitiable condition in· which these workers were livinc in . . straw jhuggies witho~t any protection ·against sun 8_rd min arc!. \~'ith drinking water available only from the iiarsati nal!e/i. 'The Rrrc•rt pointed out that while M/s. Ash~k ·Sri_vastavri anci Asl1ok Pacda. r ! ' ··~

were inter~iewing the .workers in the Lakkarpur stone quarry, ·ii F started raining heavily and thereupon they t0ek shelter in me of tl•e j_hugg~es ''.but.inside the jhuggi .it'wns not _safC, ·as \vater \vns p0urlnr inside'.' amt they were compleiely drenched inside the jhu~gi. ik · Repo·rt also stated ·that, according to·.tJ1.ese workers. there werc·no ;nodical facilities available and even where workers were inj1•rrd. they did.not• get.any medical aid. . The Report ended hy cbmv;rf' . G . that the.so workmen "presented a picture of hclplessnes>. poverty rrci ?xtrcme exploitation at the hands of moneyed people" and ihry \\(·re found "leading a most.miserable life and perhapsheasts rnd ;n;n-c'c. could be leading niore comfortable life than these •iielplessiabourers".

H · Thereafter, the writ petition came up for hc.aring on Sth March 1;'82 along with anot(ler wtit petition filed by the present pethiciner

' . .. IlANDJIUA MUKTI MORCHA v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 99

j for release of some other bonded. labourers and on this day the Court A m1-:le an order directing that the copies of the Repqtt of M/s. Ashok . · Srinstava and Ashok Panda should- be supplied to all the mine- ' lc>sees and stono crushers who are respondents t_o. th_e writ petitions . 'so that they mly have an opportunity to file their reply to the focts found in the Report. The Court also appointed ·nr. Patw.ardha'n ~f . Indi•.tn _Institute of Technology to carry out a socioClegal lnvestiga- . B ti.on in the following terms : · a "ft is neCe5'ary that socio-legal investigation should be ' -1.· carried out for the purpose 9f determining what are the con- ..

- ditiohs prevailing in the various quar_ries in Faridabad Dis- trict and. whether ther_e· are any workmen in those qu.arries · . againsi their will 'or without their conse1it and what are the · COi'!ditions i~ which they an living. and whether a·ny of the c provisions ofthe Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act and Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment&· Conditions ofScrvice) Act is being violated. We may make it clear that when ,~e are directiiig a socio-legal investigation . - .of these matters it 'is . not in a Spirit to criticise the State n G wernment or any of its officers but-with a view to find. ou_t the correctness of the state of affairs so that the State Govern- . moot.and its officers could take i1cccssary steps for remedying· . tl~e situation if a state of affairs cxis'ts ,v.hicli iS contrary .-tO th.e provi.sions Of law and. the basic· hunH1n· .nornis. · The Court can take actioi1 only after the s~cio-legal investigation is carried out by some respon;iblc person and a copy ,ofthe· 'report of the socio-legal investigation is· made available io the p1rties. We would, therefore, request Dr. Patwardhan of T.f .T. to be good enough to carry out a socio-legal investigation into the aforesaid matters in the quarfies in Faridabad :bistriCt · a list of which will .be supplied by Mr: Muklrnty on behalf of the P'titi011crs to. Dr. Patwardhan within ten d"ays from . · today after giving a copy to Mr. K.d. Bhagat, learned C9ttn<el appearing for the State of Haryairn. Dr.·Patwardhap i» · r~quested- _to ca,rry out soci~-lcgal investigation with .a view to putting forward a scheme for improving the living - COndi-tions for t.he worke.rs worki1Jg in t.hc. stonc-·ql1arries and G · after. the scheme is submitted to. us we propose to hear the p~rtics ,011 the scheme with a ·view to evolving a fi~al scheme with the assistance of the State of Haryana for the purpose of ccci1lon1ic regeneratiol}--.of t~ese workn1en. _ H The Court permitted Dr. Patwardhan to t~ke th~ assistance of

• 100' SUPRBME COURT.REPORTS · [1984] 2 s.c,R. • A any person other th.an the parties to the writ petition in order to help · him in his task and at the suggestion of the Court, the State of Haryana agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1500 to meet the expenses of'Dr. Patwardhan in carrying out the socio-legal investigation. ·The Court also .recorded in its order .that when it was pointed out ·in the Report of M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda that the workers in the stone .quarries ·did not have any pure driJJking water · but. were using dirty water from the nallah for drinking purposes, Mr. K.G. Bhagat learned Actditionar Solicitor General appearing on ,behalf of the State of Haryana fairly stated that "though it may not be strictly the obligation of the· State Government, the State Gqvern-

c ment will take necessary measures fof providing. cfrinking facilities to the workmen in the stone quarries" .. The Court also directed that • the. workmen whose names were setout in the writ petition. and in the . Report of M/s. · Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda and particularly - in regard to whom· a. separate statement had been filed in Court on · b;half of the petitioner, would be free to go wherever they liked and they should not be restrained from doing so by any 'one and "i.f they go to· their respective villages, the district magistrates having jnris- ~· diction over those villages" shall "take steps or measures to the extent p)ssible for rehabilitating them." .

Pursuant to this order made by the Court, the State of Haryana d~po~ited a sum of Rs. 1500 in Court to.meet the expenses of the so;io-legal investigation and Dr. Patwardhan embarked upon his task with tlie as~istance of Mr. Krishan Mahajan, the.legal corres- . p'.>ndent of the Hindustan Times. It took some time for Dr. Patwar- dh1n to complete his assignment and prepare his report but having r . regard to the lmmensity of.the task, the.time within which Dr. Pat- w1rdhan finished the inquiry and submitted his report was remarkably sbrt. . We shall have occasion to refer to .this Report a little latter • w'nn we deal· with the arguments advanced .on behalf of the parties', bc1t we m1y point out at this stage that the report of Dr. Patwardhan is a compreh~nsive, well documented socio-legal study of the con- ditions in which the workmen engaged in stone quarries and· stone crushers live and work and it. has made various constructive sugges- G- tions·. and recommendations fof'ihe purpqs{ of improving the living conditions of the<ie workmen. We are· indeed grateful td'Dr. Pat- w1rdhan for carrying out this massive assignment so efficiently an:i in.such a short time,-. Dr. Patwardhan has submitted a state- . m'nt of the expenses 'incurred by him .in carrying out this ·socio-legal investigation and this statement shows that .he has incurred a total· . expense of Rs. 2078 which after withdrawal of the amount of Rs.

' BANDHUA ·MfTKTI MORCHA v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) IOI

1500 deposit;d by the State of Haryana, leaves a balance of Rs. 578 A to 'be reimbursed to_ Dr. Patwardhan. ·We are of the view that Dr. Patwardhan ·should also be paid a· small honorarium of Rs. 1000. Wi would therefore direct the State of Haryana to deposit a sum of Rs. \' 578 with the Registry of this Court within_ 4 weeks from today with . liberty to Dr. Patwardhan to· withdraw the same. B Though it was stated by Shri K.G. Bhagat on · behalf of the State of Haryana that the State Government will take necessary moasures· for providing dr_inking facilities to the workmen •in the stone quarries referred to in the writ petition and in the report of M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda, it appears that either no such

- measures were taken on behalf of the State Oovernment or even . if ·. C · they wore taken, they were short lived. The result was that the work- . men working in most of these stone quarries had to remain wit.hoot . • pure drinking water and they had to continue "to quench their thirst by d,j;inking dirty and filthy water". Whether it is the obligation of the State Government to provide pure drinking water and· if so what measures should be directed to be taken by the State Government in D . that behalf are matters which·. we shall presently consider. These are matters of some importance because there can be no doubt \hat · · pure drinking water is absolutely·essential to ·the health and .well- being of the workmen and some authority has to be resp.onsible for. providing it. '

Before we ·proceed to conside·r the merits of the controversy bet- ween the parties in all its various aspects it will be convenient at this

- stage to. dispose of a few preliminary oli)ections urged on behalf of \ tile respondents. The learned Additional Solicitor General appear- ing on behalf of the State of Harynana as also Mr. Phadke on behalf of one of the mine lessees contended that even if what is allrned by the F ·petitioner in his letter which has been treated as a writ petition, is true; it cannot support a writ petition under Article 32 of the Con- stitution, becaus~ no fundamental right of the petitiouer or of the workmen on whose behalf the writ petition has been filed, can be said to have been infringed. This contention is, in our opinion, futile and it is indeed surprising that the State Government should have raised. it in answer to the writ petition. We can appreciate tJ:te anxiety. of the mine lessees to resist the writ petition on any ground availa- ' ble to them, be· it hyper-technical or even frivolous, bnt we find it imcomprehensible -that the State ·Government should urge such a · preliminary objection .with a view to stifling at the thresh-hold an inquiry by the Court a,• .lo wheth~r the 'workmen are living in bondage

SUpREME CoURT REPORTS (1984] 2 s.c.R. ' . A anct· under inhuman conditions. We should have thoughtthat if any citizen b.rings b~fore the Court.·a complaint that a large number of 'peasants or workers are bonded se,rfs ·or are being subjected to.. ex: ploitation by a few mine lessees 6r conli'~ctors ·.or employers· or are b'ing denied the benefits of social welfare laws, the.State Government,. whic~ is, under. our conititutional scheme, charged with. the mission. of bringing abSut a new socio-economic order where there will be social and .econ·imb justice for every one and equality of status and opportunity for ·au, would wclconie an inquiry by the court, so that if it is. fow1d that there. are in· fact bonded labourers or even if the .WJrkers.are not bonded in the strict' sense Of the term as defined in.the Bonded. Lib:mr System (Abolition) Act 1976 but they are made to c provide forced labciur pr are consigned to a life of utfer deprivation . and degradatiqn, such a situation can be set right by the State Govern- . · mont. Even if the State Government· is on its own inquiry satisfied • that ·th~ workm,n are not .bonded and arc not co'mpelled to provide •. forced .lab.our and are living and worhng ii; decent conditions with all · - tho b1sic nec~ssities or life provided to them, 'the State Goveni"ment .. ,j. should not b1u1k-an inquiry by the court when a complaint is brought b/ a citize~,:but it.should be anxious to ;atisfy the court and thr6ugh . th~. court. the p'ople, of the country, that it is discharging its constitu- tional oblig1tbn fairly and· adequately and the. workmen are being ensured ~ooi.al and economic justice: We have on more occasions thln on' said tl11t ,public interest litigation is not' in· the nature of .E ·adversary litigation but it is· a challenge and. an opportunity to the .. governm,nt and, its otli;ers to' nuke basic human rights meaningful to· tbe. depfive.:I and vulnerable sections of the community and to. assure them s:icial and ecJrromic justice whi~h is the signature tune of our GJnstitution. The Government and its. officers must welqome public · l c.J · interest litig1[ion, · bocause it would provide. them an occasion to ' F exa:nine w:nth'r the pJar and the down-trodden are gettillg their 'sJoial ani e;JrrJmic ~:1titlemlnts or whether they are continuing to ro.n1in victlm; of deception and expl~itafion at !he hands of strong . and pJwerful sections \)ftlie C·Jmmu1;ity and wliether social and econo- mic justice has become a o:ieaning-fui reality for the1n ot it has remained tci~rely ~ teasing illusion and a>pro1nise- of unreality, so that in case G. . the complaint·in the public interest litigation is found to be true,: . they can in discharge or;' their' constitutional obligation root out ex- ploitation and. injustice and·ensure to the weaker. sections their rights . and entitlcme~ts. When the Court entertains public. interest litiga- · iion, it does not do so.in.a cavilling spirit or in a confrontational mood H ··or with a -view to tilting.at executive authority or seeking to usurp it bui its attempt,. is only to ensure observance of .sociai and economic

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA v. UNION (Bhagwilti, J.) 103

rescue programmes: legislatiye as w~ir as executive, fra1il~d for the · A i . · benefit of ti)e have-nots and the handica1iped and to protect them against vio-Jation ·of their basic human rights, which is also the con- . stitutional obligation of the executive. The Court is. thus• merely assisting in the ·realisation of the constitutio1ial obj_ecti\•cs.

Moreover, when a complaint i_s made on behalf of workmen that tlrey are held in bondage :and arc working and· living in miserable conditions without any proper or adequate shelter over their heads, without any" protection againsi ·sun and rain, without ·two .square meals per day.and with only dirty water 'from a nullah to. drink, it is difficult to appreciate how such a c01hplaini can be thrown out o~ the ' . ground that it is not violative of the fundamental right of the workmen .. c It is the fundamental riglit of every one in this country, a_ssurcd under the interpretatioi1 giv~n to A~ticlc 21 b,y thisCourt in Fraizcis Mullen's case, ·to live with human dignity, free froiu exr.loitation. This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Arti!le 21 ·derives its life breath from _the Directive Prindplcs of State Policy and parti- · cularly clauses (e}~nd (f) of Article 39 and Artie-les41 and-42. and at D the. least, th<;refore, it must include protection of the. health and sfre- _ngth of workers men and wornen, and of the tcriuer age of children against abus~, opportunities and facilities for child_ren to develop in ·a healthy ·man1\er and in conditioi1s of freedom and dignity; ·educa- tional facilities, just and humane conditions of w6rk ·and inaternity ·. relief. These are the ·minimuln requirements which must exist_ in· I~ order to enable_ a person to live with human dignity and no State· norther the Central Government nor any State Government-has the

.... \ fight to take any action which will deprive a_person 0°f ihe enjoyment of these basic essentials: Since the Direcrive Principles of State . P0liey contained.in clauscs(e) and (f) of Article 39, Article 41 and· · 42 are not enforceable in a court of law, it may not be possible to F > compel the State through the judicial process to make provision: by • statutory enactment or executive fiat for ensuring these_ basic essen· iials ·which go to make up a life of human dignity but .where legisla· tion is alrea\ly enacted by the St~te providing these basic require- ments to the workmen ·and thus investing their right to"1ive 'with basic human dignity, with concr-ete reality a11d content; the State can _cer- tainly be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation' for inac- tion on' the part of the State in securing implementation of such · legislation would- a1u~unt. to denial of the right to live with human dignitY. enshrined in Article 21, more so in the_context of Article 256 which providGs that· the. executive power of every State shall be so· .H exercised· as to ensure compliance ;yith the iaws made by. Parliament

!04 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [1'984] 2 s.c.R.

and any existing laws which. apply in that State, We have alr~ady po.inted out in Asiad Construction Worker<1l case that the State is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation ..of the fun- damecitaJ right of any. person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker sections of the;community and is unable .to wage a legal battle . against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. The ·• B Central Government. is' therefore b·ound to ensure observance of various social ,;,e!fare and Jabour laws enacted by Parlia~ent for the purpose of securing to the \vorkmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the Directive Principles of State Policy. It must also follow. as a necessary coroilary that the State of Haryana in which the stone quarries are vested by reason cif Haryana Minerals c (V'i.sting of Righ.ts) .Act 1973 and which is therefore the owner of the· mines -cannot while giving its mines for stone quarrying operations, permit workmen to be denied the benefit of various social welfare and labour laws ~nacted with a view to enablihg them to live aJife of human dig~ity. tthe State of Haryana must therefore .ensure that the mirre-less.f'.es or contractors, to who1n. it is giving .·its mines for stone D quarrying operations, observe various social welfare and labour laws enacted for the benefit of the workmen. This is a constitutional Obligation which can be enforced against the Central Governinent and .the State of Haryai1a by a writ petition under Article 32· of the Con· · stitution.

E The. next preliminary objection. urged by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the State ofHaryana and Mr. Phadke on behalf of one of the mine:Jessees was that the court had no po~er Jo appoint either Mr. Ashok Srivastava and Mr. Ashok Panda or Mr. Patwardhan as commissioners and the Reports made by them had ( ... no evidentiary value since what was stated in .the Reports'was based only on ex-parte staterrients which had not been tested by ctoss-ex- amination. The leari1ed Additional Solicitor General as also Mr. Phadke ,X . relied on Order XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 which, as ·its heading shows, ·deals with· commissions and contended that since the commissions issued by the court in the. present case did not fall within the terms of any of the provisfons of Order XLVI, they were outside the scope of the power of the court and the cour! was not entitled to place any reliance on their reports for the purpose of adju- dicating the issues arising in the writ petition. This arguemnt, plausi- ble though .it rnay seem at first sight, is in our opini911 not well founded a and must be rejected. It .is based upon total misconception of the

(I) [1983] I S.C.R. 456.

BANDHU~ MUHi MORCHA v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 105

true nature of a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution. A ArtiCJe 32 is so frequently used by iawyers and judges for ·enforcement · of fundamental rights without a1iy preliminary objection against its invocation being raised on behalf of the State, that we have rarely . any occasion to examine its language and consiucr how lar,e is the width and amplitude qf its dimens.ion and range. We are rn much .accustomed to the.· concept~ of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which . B a require every legal. proceedin'g including a proceeding for high pre- rogative writ to be cast in a rigid or definitive mould and insist on ... ' ob.seivance of certain ,,7en settled rules of procedure, that we irr.pli- Citly assume that the same sophisticated procedural rules must also govern a 'proceedillg under Article 32 and the S11prcJi1e Court camict permit itself to be freed from tl1e shackles of these rules even if that C. be necessary for enforce111ent ·of a fundamental right. It wa~ orr · the basis of this impre,sion fostered by Jong association with the Anglo- Saxon system of administration of justice thaf for a number of y,ears this court had taken the view that it is only a person whose fundamental right is violated who can approach the Supreme Court for relie1 ui:der Article 32 or in other words, he mus,t have a. cause of actic1) fer D. euforcemellt of his fundamental right. It was 01ily in the year 1981 in the Judges Appointment and Transfer Case~' that thfs Ccurt · for lhe llrst tiine took,the view that v,1here a pe:rson .or ·class of :i:;erscns to whom legal injury is caused by reason of violation of a fundamental right is unable to approach the court for judicial redress on account of poverty or disability· or socially or economically ·disadvantaged E position, any member. of the public acting bona fide can move the court for relief u~der Article 32 and a fortiofari, also under Article 226, so that the fundamental rights may become meaningful not only for the rich and the well:to-do who have the means to approach the court but also for the large masses of pe°'le who are living a life of want and destitution and who are by reason of Jack of awareness, assertive- F . ness and resources unable to seek judicial redress. This "view whic.h we took in the Judges Appointment and Transfer Case is clearly within ti1e terms of Article 32 if only we look at the language of this . Article uninfluenced and uninhibited by any pre-conceptions and prejudices or any pre-conceived notions. Article 32 in so far it is material is iii the following -terms : G "Art. 32 (!) : The right to move the Supreme Court by ,, · appropriate proceedings for4the effforce- ment of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. H (!) [1982] (2).SCR 365.

106 . . SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1984) 2 S.C.R .

A (2) : The Supreme Court shall have power to . · issue directions or orders or .writs, .in- • · clucling writ in the nature of habeas corpus, ·mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and cer!lornri, whichever may be appropriate, . for the enforcemel)t of any of the rights B conferi·ed by this Part. · .

While intcrpre,ting Article 32, it must. be borne in mind that our'approach must be guided. not by any v.crbal or formalistic.cations of coristrudion but by the. par.amount object and purpose for which . thi;; Article has been. enacted as a Funadmental Right in the Con- c stitution· and its· interpretation must receive illtnnination f10m the trinity of provisions ivhich permeate and energise the entire Constitu- tioil namely, the Preamale, the Ftmclarnerital Rights and the Difec- tiw Prlndples of State Policy. · .Clau·se (1) of Article 32 c6nfc1:s the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of any of the fun- damental rights, but it does not 'say as to who shall luive this right to D . move the Supreme ·court not does it say by what proceedings the · Supreme Court may be so moved. There· is· no li;nitation in· the words. of Clause (1) of Article 32 that the fundamental right which is . sought to be enforced by. moving the Supreine Cou.rt should be one belongini to the person who' moves the Supreme Court JlOI .docs il say that the Supreme Court should. be m~ved ·only by a particular E ·kind of pr0ceoding; It is clear on the plain langu'lge of clause (I) of Article 32 that whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right;any one can· move the Sqpreme Court for enforcement ofsuch funda.mental right. Of course, the Court wo.uld not, in exercise of . its discretion, intervene at the instance of a meddlesome interloper . or busy body, and ~ould ordina?ily insist that only a person whose fundamental right is violated should be. allowed to activise the court, but there is no fetter upon the power of the <:ourt to entertain a pro: . ceeding initiated by any person other than the one whose fundamental right is violated, though the court would, not ordinaril} entertain · such a proceoding, since the person whose fundamental righ(is violated · can always apprdacJ:i the court and if lie. does not wish to seek judicial G redress by moving the court, why should some one else be allowed to· ·do so on his behalf. This reasoning however breaks down. when we have the· case of a"person or class of persons whose [urid~mental right is violated but who cannot hiwe resort.to the cqurt on account of their · pJverty or disability o.r soci'ally or economically disadvantaged posi- H tion· ani in suoh ·a case, therefore, the courf·.can·and must allow any member of the public· acting boqa fid0 to espouse the cause of such

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA v. UNIGN . (Bhagwati; J.)

person or class of persons and move .the court for j'udicial rnforccme!it 107 . A ·or the fundamental right of such person or class of persons. This does n~t violate, in the slightest m\'asure, the language @f the con- • stitutional provision enacted in clause (J) of A1ticlc 32"

. . The.n again. clause(!) of Article 32 says that the Supreme Court. ~ '

can be moved for enforcement. of a fundamental right by any. 'a ppro-. B priate' proeeedlng. T!ierc is no limitation. in regard to the kind of proceeding envisaged in clause (l) of Article _32 except that.the·pro- ceedi.ng ·must be: "appropriate" and this requirement of appropriate- ness must be judged in the'light of the purpose for which· the proceed- ing is to be taken, narnely, enforcement of a fondamentai right: . Tl1e Co11tituti~n makers .deliberately did not lay down ~ny particu]ar fo111i C

- ·of procec(iing for enforcement of a fu'ndamental right nor did they stipulate that such proceeding should conform. to· any rigid pattem or straight jacket formula as, for example, in England,.· because they knew that in a country' like India where there is'so. much ·or p.Jverty, ignorance,. illiteracy, deprivati.on and exploitation, 'iny insistence on a rigid formula·of proceeding for enforcement of a fu1.id- ·. D a1mntal right· would. become self-defeating · .because it would. place enforcement of fundamental rights beyond the reach of the common imn and the enti're remedy for 'enforcement of fundainen'tal rights .- \1('.lich th~ C Jtistitution' ma tiers regarded as· so precious ~nd invaluable tint tiny elev1ted it to. the status of a fundamental right, would be- CJm' a 'll;re rope of s~nd so far as the large masses of the people in E -/ this -c·)untry ar0 ce>il~erned. · The Constitution 1nakers therefore advis,dly provided in Clause (I) of Article 32-that the Supreme Court m1y b' in)v ;.j by a11y '.a;>prop'riatc' proceeding, .'appropriate' not

- .i1r·term1 of a11y pi~ticular form but 'appropriate'· with ·refrcnce ·to the pucpJ~c o( the proceeding. · That is the reason why it .was held by this· Cnrt in the Judges Appoi1itment and Transfer Case (supra) lint Wli)rC a m'mbor of the public acting ·bona_ fide moves Hie Court for enforcJ.mnt of a. funclamental ·right 011 behalf of a person or F

cla11 of pmoin who on acco.uu; of poverty or .disability cir s.ocially 1 Of .eJ.JllJ n c1\ly disidvantaged position cannot approach the ·Court far nlief, such member ·of the public may move the court even .by just wriiiag,a letter, because i~would not.be right or fair to· expect a G . p~rson acting pro bona publico to incur expenses out of his own pocket for going to.a. lawyer and preparing a regular writ petition for being filed in c6uit for cnfprcement. of the fundamentalright or'the poor and doprivod ;ectfons of the cominunify a11d in such a case, a Jetter addrossecd. by him· can legitimately be regarded as ari "appropriate''. ·ii proceeding. ·

103 SUPREMI> COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R· • A !Jut the question then arises as to what is the power which may be bi exernis.ed 0

the· Supreme Court when it is moved by an "appro_priate" proceeding for enforcement ·of a fundamental right. ·The only provision made by the Constitution maker~ in this behallis to be found in clause (2) of Article 32.which confers power on the Supreme Court "to issue directions or orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo· warranto" and cer- · tlorari, which-ever may be apprapriate, for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. lt will be seen that the power conferred by clause (2) of Article 32 is in the widest terms. . It is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs of habeas 'corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo quarrnnto, which are hedged in by strict condi- c tions differing from one writ·to another and which to quote the words. f-- spoken by Lord Atkin 'in Bnited Australia Liniited v. Barciays Ban le Ltd. (ll in another context often "stand in the path of justice·Clanking .... their mediavel cilains". But it is much wider and includes witilin it't; matrix, power to issue,any directions, orders or .writs which may be appropriate for enforcement of the iuO:damental right in questi~n D and this is made ampiy clear by tlie inclusive clause whicil refers to ;,, the 1iature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo·warranto ;ind certiorari. It is not only the iligh prerogative writs of 111anda- n1us, habeas corpus, ·prohibition, quo \Varranto and. certiorari .which can bei ssuo:l by the Supreme Court but· also writs in the nature cif . thes~ higil pnrJg1tive writs and tl1erefore even if the cpnditions for E issue of any of tl1·oie high prerogative writs are not fulfilled; the Suprem~ Court W·JU\d n_o( be constrained to fold its hands in despair and plead· its inability to help the citizen who has· come before it for

F judieial redr~ss, bitt would have po.wer to issue any directio1i, order .or \Vri·t including a. \Vrit in. the nature of any high prerOgatlve writ. This provision conforring on the Supreme Court power t~ enforce the fonaamental rights. in tile widest possible terms shows the anJ<icty ·r_ of the Constitution makers not to allow any prncedural techn!coli- ties to. stand in the way of enforcement of fu.ndame~tal rights. · The Constitution · mlkers clearly intende.d that the Supreme Court should have the atnplest power to issue whatever ·direction, order or writ nny be appropriate in a given case for enforcement of a fundameutal G right. But what procedure shall be followed by the Supoome Court .. ;n exercising. tile power .tq issue such direction,. order or writ ? That is a 1 u1tt·~~r on 1vi1ich the Co·nstitution is silent and advisedly So, be·ca- u;~ the Con•titt1tion makers never intended to fetter tile discretio.n of · . the Suprome Court to evolve a procedure appropriate in the circums- H • (l) [1941] AC l·

BHANDHlJA MUKTI MORC!IA V. UNION (Bhagwati, /) 109 • tances of a given case ·for the purpose of enabling it to exercise its A ·power ~f enforcing a fundamental right. Neither clause (2) of Article 32 nor any otiler provision of the Constitution requires that any particular procedure shall be followed· by the Supreme ·Court in exercising its powe,I to issue an, appropirate direction; order or writ. The purpose for which the power to issue an ~ppropriate direction, order or writ is conferred on the Supreme ·co.urt is to secure enforce- B ment of a fundamental right and obviously therefore, whatever pro- cedure' is necessary for fulfilment. of tb,e purpose must be permissible to the Supreme Court. · n is not at all obligatory that arr adversarial procedur, ·where each party produces his own evidence tested by cross examipation by the other side and the judge sits like an umpire and decides the case only on the basis of such m.aterial as may be c produced before him by both parties, must lie followed in a proceed- ing under Article 32 for enforcement of a fundamenlal right. . Jn fact, \ there is no such constitutional. compulsion enacted in clause (2) of ArtiCle '.l2 or. in any other part of tbe Constituion. It is only because we have been following the adversarial procedure for over a century owing to the introduction of the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence ·under the British Rule that it has bccom! a part of our conscious as . well as sub-conscious thinking that every judiGial 'proceeding must. • be 'casf in the mould of adversarial procedure and that justice cannot be dqne unless the 'adversarial procedure is adopted. But it may be "" . noted .that there is riothing sacrosanct about the adversarial procedure and in fact it is not followed in many other countries where the civil E

..... -, system of law prevails.· The adversarial procedure with evidence led either party and tested by-cross-examinaticiri by the other. party and the judge playing a passive role has become a part ofour legal system because it is·embodied in. the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. But these statutes ob.iously have no application where >: a •new juriSdicdon is created in the Suprcn1c Court for enforce1ncnf F of a fundamental right. We do not think we would be justified in imposing any restriction on the power of the Supreme Court to adopt such procedure as it thinks fit in exercise of its new jurisdiction, by engrafting adversarial procedure on it. when the ·constitution makers haVe delibe,rately cho?en not to insist on any such requirement and instead, left it opei~ to tl)e SuP,reme Court to foliow.such proceoure·as it thinks appropriate for the purpose of securfng the end for which the power is conferred, namely, enforcement of a fundamental right. The adversarial proceQ_ure l)aS, in fact, come in for a ·lot of criticism !Ven in the coU:ntry of its ofigin, and there is an increasing tendency even in that country to depart from its strict. norms. Lord' De Jin H speaking of the.~·nglish judi~ial syS"te.m· sai~ ~ ''If our n1~thcds \\Ere

, . . 110 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R· ·

as antiq.uated as our legal methods, we ~hould be a ba~krupl country". +-'. ,And Foster Q:C . .Observed : . "I t!Jink tl1e· whole EngJ.ish system is non-sense. I would go to the root of it-·~the civil case between two is private parties. a mimic battle ........ conducted according to rules of ev.idcnce." .There's a consicferable body of juristic opinion in our country als0 which believes that strict adherence to the adversarial B ·procedure can some times lead tq injustice, . particularly where the parties are not evenly balanced i.n social or economic st1ength. Where a one of the parties to a litigation belongs to poor and de?rived section of the community and does not possess adequate social and material.

·C resources, he is bound to be at· a disadvantage as against a· strong· and p0werful opponent ui1de.r the adversary system of jusiice, because . o[ his diflb1lty ih getting competent legal representation and more that; .. anything else, his inability to produce relevant evidence before the court. ··Therefore, ·when the poor come before ·the· coil;!, particularly for cnforcem,nt of their fondam~ntal rights, it is nescessary to de.part from'thi adversari'al ·procedure· and to evolve a n'ew procedure which, wi!I rmkc it pJs~ible for the poor and the weak to bring the necessary D . 1111tcrial before . the court for. the 'purpose of securing enforce111e11t ·. th>'r funclamcntal rights. It must be remembered that the problems . of

of th~ pJor. whic'.1· are now coming before the court.are qualitatively different from thJse which ·hnvo hither to occupied the attei1tion of tho C'}urt and_they needa different kind of law·yering skill· and a · '... ' difforent kind of judicial approach. If we blindly folio~ the· ad versa- E ria l prJcedure in their case; they would never be able to. enforce their fu,1da1nenta,! rights and the result would be nothing but a mockery of the Constitution. We have· therefore to abandon the laissez T •' ; faire .approach in .the jH<l°iciai proc~ss particularly where it .involves I,. a q'uestion of enforcement' of fundamental rights and forge new tcols, devise new methods and adopt new strategies for the purpose of making , ), ' F · fnndarmntal ·rights meanirtgful for the lar.geJmsses of people. Ali'd this is clearly permissible on the language of claus.e (2) -of Aricle 32 . b~catise the .Constitution 1nakers 'while enaCting·that .clau~e· have dC- · lib~rateljr' and advisedly not 11sed any words restricting ihe power· of the court to adopt any procedure which it considers appropriate in· • th~ circilmstanccs of a given case for_ enforcing a funda~ental right. G It is true. that the 'adoption of this 1\oi{-traditionql approach is not 'likely to find easy. acceptance from the generality of lawyers because their n.;inds it re. conditioned by constant association with the existing system of'administration ~f justice which has become ingrained in them as a result of long years of familiarity and experience ~nd become part of their mental make up and habit and they would therefore· aliv1ys hlve an unconseiqus N"dilection . for the prevailing ..systeni·

BANDHUA MUKTl MORCHA v. UNION (Bhagwati,.J.) Ii I

of administration o(iustice. ·. But if we want. the fundamental rights to become a living .reality and the· Supreme Court to become it real, ·sentinel on the quiviVe, we must free. outselves from the shackles of outdated and outmoded assumptions and bring to bear on the subject · fresh outlook and original unconventional thirtking. ·

·Nowit is obviou; that the poor and the disadvantaged cannot possibly produce relevant material before the court in support of their 'case and equally where an action is brought on their behalf by a' citizen . acting ·pro bon~ publico, it would be alcimost impossible for him to gather the relevant materia.1 and place it before the court. What is the Supreme Court to do in such a case ? Would the Supreme·Court not be failing. iri discharge of its constitutional duty of enforcing a . c fundamental ·right •if it refuses to intervene becasue the petiti 0 i1cr b;!Onging to .the underprivileged segment of s6Ciety o} a publiC spirited dtii·~n espousing his· cause is. unable ·to 'produce the relevant material b)fore the. court. If the Supreme Court were to adopt a pas.iive approach and decline to intervene in .s.uch a case becaues relevant · 1mterial has not been produced ·before ft by the party seeking its Ii ·intervention, the fundamental rights would remain merely a teasing: illu ;ion so f'.tr as the poor and disadvantaged sectfons of the community are cJ'lcerned. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court has evolv-· ed the practice of appointing commissionsfor the puqiose of gathering facts and data in regard to a complaint of breach of fundamental right made on behalf of the weaker sections of the society. The Report . E · ' of the coinmissioner \vould fur1~ish primil ia~ie eviden~e-.of the facts and data gathered by the commissioner and .that i's why the Supreme · Court is camful to appoint a responsible. person as commissioner to · \ make an inquiry or investigation into the facts rela.ting to the cort1- plaint• It is interesting to note that in the pa1tthe Supreme Court has appoiMted sometimes .a district magistrate, sometimes a district F Ji1dge, soinetimes ·a professor of law, ·sometimes a jou~nalist,'scme- times an officer of the court and sometimes an advocate practising in t!1c court, for the ptirp.ose of carrying out an inquiry qr investigation

.. and m1king report. to the court because t)1e commi.ssioner appointed by t:ie C.ourt must be a responsible person who enjoys the confidence of tho court and who is ·.expected. to carry out his assignment objecti- G v0Jy and impartially. without any predilection ·or prejudice. .Once the r,eport of the Commissioner is received, copies.of .jt would be sup- . 'plied to the parties so that either party; if it ·wan.ts to dispute any cf ihe facts or data stated in the Report, may do so by filing an ,,ffidavit and the court then consider the report of the commissioner. and the . H affi1avits which· ll!aY have been filed and pro_ceed (o adjiidiciate upon ·

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 2 s.c,R.

A the is~ue~rising in the w1it petition. It would be entirely for the Court to consider what·weight to attach to the facts and data stated in the report of.the commissioner and to what extent to act upon such facts · and data. ·But it would not be correct to say _that the report of the commissio.ner has Jio evidentiary Vaine at all, since the statements made in it are no't tested by cross-examination. To accept thiS con- B tention would be to introduce the adversarial procedure· in a proceed- ·ing where in the given situation, it is totally inapposite. The learned A1ditional Solicitor General and Mr: Phadke relied on Order XXVl of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules ! 966 for the purpose ofeontending that a commission

c can be appointed by the Supt;eme Court only .ro'r .the purpose of exa- 1nining witnesses, niaking legal-investigations and exan1iningaecounts f-· and the _Supre1m Court has no power to appoint t\ commission for miking an lnqtiiry: or in'1'esti'gatio1~ into facts relating to a Coin- · platnt of violation of a fundamental t'ight in a proceeding under Article 32.. NJw it is true that Order XLV I of the. Supreme Court R"1JC5 1956 m:1kes the proyisions of Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Prciodure, except rules 13, 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 applicable to .the :S~pre:m Court and lays down the procedure for an application fol· i"m· of a com:nissiou, but O_rder XXVI is not exhaustive and does · nJt detract from the inherent power of the Supreme Court to appoint a cJm nission ..if the·app:Jinmtent of such co1nn1ission is found neccs- nry for th' purpose of securing enforcement of a fundan1ental right E in e~x~rcis~ of its c9·11stitutional jut:isdiction under Article . .32. Order: XLVI of .the Suprem' Court Rules 1966 cannot in m1y way miliiatc ag iinst the power of the Supreme Court under Article32 and in fact rulo 6 rif Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 provides .T t!11t n ithing in tlns·o Rules "sha\J be deemed to limit or otherwise a!foot th' in1Drent powers of the court to make such orders ~ts may . F b~ n~::es>;ary for the ends of justice." We ca~not therefore accept x. th' coatention or the learned Addi. Solicitor General and Mr. Phadke '. ·that th' court acted· beyond its power in appointing M/s. Ashok , Sriva-;tava· a11d Ashok Pandci as Co1nmissiOnerS in the fi~st i~stBncc and Dr. Pat\vardhan as co111n1issioner at- a subsequent stage {or the ·· purp:Jse of making: an itiquiry into the conditions C!f \vorkn1en en1p- .. G l6yod in the stone quarries. The petitioner in the "'rit petitio1i speci- . froally alleged violation of' the fundamenial rights of the workmen ·employed in the stone quarries under Articles 21 aTid 23 and it was therefore nec0ssary for· the court to appoint these c"oiinnissioner·s· for the pc1rpose of inquiring int~ the facts related io this ~omplaint. H The. Report of M/s .. Ashok s·rivastava and Ashok Panda as also· the Report of Dr. Patwardhan were clearly documents having eviden-

. BANDHUA MUK1' MORCHA v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) · 113.

tiary value.and they furnished·primafacie evidence of the facts and A.. data stated i.n those Reports. Of course, as we have· stated above, it will be for us to consider what weight w~ should attach to the facts and data contained in these·Report; i.n the light of the various af!idavi.ts filed·in the _proceedings. . . . - . . . . . We may point out that what we have. said abc ve in regard 1o B· · the exercise of jurisdiction by the. Supreme Court under Articl.e 32 .j. ' must apply equally ,in relation to the .exercise· of jurisdkticn by )lie. High. Courts under Article 226, for the latter jurisdicticn js a'[o a new constitutlonal jurisdiction and it is conferred in the san:c wide terms as .the jurisdi'ction under Article ~2 and the same powers can and must therefore be. exercised b) the .High Co];!rts while ex.ercising · C . jurisdiction under Article· 226. In. fact, the jurisdiction of the High · Courts under Article 226 is much wider, because the. High Courts are required to exercise· this jurisdiction not only for enforcement of a fundamental right but also for enforcement of any legal right and there are man-yrights conferred on the poor and the disadva.ntagcd · "· which are· the creation of statute and they need·. tp _be. ·enforced· .as ·.• D urgently and vigorously its fundamental r1ghts,. ·.

·thving disposed of these preliminary ~bjections, ·we shall now . proceed· to consider the writ petition on merits. But,. before· ive forn to "examine. the facts of this case, we may'first c~nsider which . are tile laws gover.ning the living a.nil working conditions of workmen' ·,employed in the stone quarries--:~The first statute to which' we. must

- \ refer ill' this connectilfi1 is the Mines Act, 1952. This· Act extends · to tM whole of India an,d therefore applies a fo•tiorari in the State . of B:aryana. Section· 2(j) ~nes "mine" to mean ·~ny excavaticin where· any operation for the. purpose of ·searching for of obtaining mi1wrals has been. or is being carried on and includes. in clause (iv) '

F "all open cast working". The word "minerals" has been. given ·a very broad meaning under section 2(jj) a;d it rr.eans ·"ail substances which ca·rt be obtained from the earth. by mining, digging, drilling, dredging, hydraulicing. quarrying or by any other. operation" .. Section 2(kk) gives the definition of "op~n cast workfog" an4 according ·to this ddiaition, it means "a quar;y, that is to say, an·excavation where any opertatfon for the purpose of searching for or obtaining minerals ''has been or is.being carried <in.'not being ..a shaft or an excavation · which extends below superjacent ground". There can· be no doubt. that according to. these definitions, the' stone quarries with whi~h we are concer_ned in this writ petition, constitute "mines" within the meanijlg of the d;finition of that te.rm in 'section 2(j). since Jhey qre

114 SUPREME €0tJRT REPORT9' (1984] 2 S.C.R. •·

A excavations where operations for the· purp'ose of searching for or· obtaining stone by quarrying are being carried on· but they are not" 'open cast working' since admittedly excavations in the case of these ·stone quarries extend below superjace11t ground, But the question · still remains whether the provisions or' the Mines Act 1952 apply : to these stone quarries even if they are "mines"., Section '3(1) (b) B . enacts that the provision~ of the Mines Act, 1952 except those con- tained in sections 7, 8, 9, 44, 45 and 46 shall not apply to any mine engaged in the extraction 'i11ter alia of kankar, 'murruni,' Jaterite. - boulders, gravel, shingle, building stone, road nietal and earth and ·therefore, if this statutory. provision stood alone without any qualifi' cation, it would appear that barring the excepted sections, the provi- c sions of Mines Act 1952 would not apply to these stone. quarries. But there is a proviso to section 3(1)(b) which is very material and it runs as follows :

"3(1) The provisipns of this Act, except those contained

D • in sections 7, 8, 9, 44, 45 and 46, shall not apP.IY to'-'-

·(b) any mine engaged in the exiraction of kank.ar, murrum, Iaterite, boulder, gravel, shingle, ordinary sand (excluding moulding sand, gl~ss sand and other mineral sands), ordinary clay (excluding kaolin, china clay, white clay or fire clay), building.sto.ne, road metal earth, fullors E. earth and. lime stone : ' Provided -that- I F . . . . (i) the workings do not ext~nd below superjacent ground; or

(ii) where' it is an open cast working- · ..- ¥ ~

)( (a) the depth q( ,the excavation measured from its highefit to its !~west point ·nowhere exceeds· six metfes; • . . (b) the number of persons employed on any one day does not exceed fifty; a~d , (c) explosives are not used in connection with ihe. · excavation."

Since . the workings in these stone quarries cxter.d belc w superjacent ground and they are not 'open cast workings' and more- ,over explosives are admittedly ~sed in connection with t~ excavation,_

BANDHUA MUKTI l>!ORCHA ~· UNION (Bhagwati, .!;) 115

the conditions set out in the proviso are not fulfilled and henc;'e the A. exclusion of the provisions of the Mines Act 1952· (other than the excepted sections) ·is not attracted and all the provisions o(the Mines Act' 1952 apply to- these stone quarries. It may also be noted that the definition of 'mine' in section 2(j) includes in Clause (x) any premises or part thereof in or adjacent and belonging to a mine on : which any process ancilliary to the getting, dressing or .preparation B for sale· of minerals ........... , ... is being carried on.''. Now obviously stone crushing is a process apcilliary to the getting, dressing . or preparation for ~ale of stone quarried from. the stone quarries and therefore if th.e stone crushing activity is caj'Iied o~ in premises •' in or adjacent to a stone quarry and it belongs to the same owner as the sfone· quarry,. it would be. subject to the discipline of the . C · provisions of the Mines. Act 1952 ~nd ail wqrkmen employed in connection with such stone crushers would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of that Act. It will, thus, be seen that all the provi- sions of the Mines Act, 1952 are. applicable to the \vorkmen employed in the stone quarries as also to the· workmen employed in· connection: with stone crushers, where. the stone crusher is si.tuate in or adjoining D to a stone quarry and belongs to the same owner as the stone quany. Now the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 which are material ·are those set out in Chapters V; VI and VII, Chapter V deaiing wit.h. provisions as to h~alth and safety, Chapter.VI, with.hours and li1'nita- tion of employment and Chapter VII, wfrh leave with wages. The provisions contained in these three Chapters confer certain rights E' and benefits on the workmen employed in the stone quarries and stone crushers and these rights and benefits are in)ended to secure .•

- to the workmen just and humane conditiqns of work ensuring a d<cen.t standard of life with basic human dignity. We shall have' cccasicn to eonsider some of these rights .and benefiis. when we deal with the SJ?ecific complaints made on behalf ·of. the petitioner, bnt we may poillt out at this stage that the most important rights and benefits conferred on·the workmen are those relating to tmir heaHh and safety. • which include provisions as to drinking water, conservancy and injuries arising out of accidents, in regard to which detailed require- ments are laid down in Chapters V, VI and lX. of the Mine..s Rules,

1955. We may: ·also. point out. that the obligation of complying with these provisions of the Mines Act, 195~ and.the Mines Rules, 1955 rests on the owner, agent and manager of every stone quarry a.nd stone crusher~ because section 18 declares that the owner, agent and manager of every ~ine shall be responsible that all operatio'ns carried on in connection th~rewith are cond'ucted in accordance ·with H· the provision~ of the Act and 'of the' regulations. rules and by•laws . ·•

.116 • . SUPREME COURT REP0R1'S [1984) 2 S.C:R; · ·

~nd of any orders made imder the Act. The 'owner' is defined in sedtion 2(1) of t!ic Mines Act~ 1952 to mean "any pemn \\EC is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the n:inc or any rart th~eof. '..:;·.... but' does -not incl~dc a ~erson who . me'iely :eceives a royalty, tent or fine from the mme or is merely the proprietor cf the.mine, subj~ct to a·ny iease, gran(or licence fc'r _the working.thereof." Sil,;;, 'the stone ·quarries in the present case are not l:eing exploited by the State of Harvana though :it iS the owner of the stone quarries, "· . but are baing give~ out ni1 lease by auctio~.- the mine-lemes "to are. ·not only lessees but also occupiers of the sfone quarr:es are tbc .owners of ihe stone•quarries within the meaning of that .expressicn as used in section 2(1) and so also arc' the owners - . of.stcr.c ctusl:os c . - . 4 - .· in relation lo their establishment. The mine-lessees and owners . ot' stone crushers are, therefore .. Jiable u·nder section I§ of the Mines · Aot, 1952 to carry .out their operations in accordance with the pro.- .. visions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Mines Rules, 1955 and,9ther Rules and· Regulations made \lnder. that Act and to ensure that the rights and benefits conf~rrecl by ti1ese proyisions are actually and D .'c.:inoretdy made available to the workmen. · The Central Government. is entrusted under .t:1e Mines Act 195.2 with the responsibility of 1eour.ing compliance with the proidsious of that.Act and of the Mines R'ulci ·1955 and· other Rules and Regulations made .under that Act and .it is the primary obligation of the Central Government to ensure· that thCS\1 provisions are c()mp!ied 1;'.ith by the mine-lessees and stone .. .E -crtlsh~r .O\vners. The State of. !-f-aryana is also, fer rei!~cns wliiCh · w~ .h1ve already disCussed, under an obli_g-aticn to take all ncces5ary steps for. the purpJsc of securing co1npliance '\'.Hh these prcvi~icns by. the mine-lessees arid owners of stone crushers. The State of: Ha,rya!1a has in fact aQl~ric;le.d ·tlie P-unjr~b Minor Miner_al Conccss,i9n ,/ ,. Rules !9M in their application to the State of Haryana by issuing F ·the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession (Haryana First Amendment) Rules.1982 ori 6th December 1982 and substituted a new clause 16 in Form F .. ?- ·n~w cla"hse 13 in Form Land a nc\v ylause 1Q in For;n1 N · • providing that the lessee/lessees or .the cohtractor/contract.ors, ~s . tho case may be, . . . .

G "shan abid.e by the, provision's ofMiries ACt, 1952 Inter • State Migian.t Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Se(vice) Ac( J979 ai1d the rules and regulatiom framed th6reundcr .and also· the. provisions. of other fabour ' Jaws both Central and State as are applicable to the work;,,e11 H e;1gag¢d in tbe mineS;·and quarrit-.s: relating to the pto·:isions of dr_inking \vat~r, rest _sheltqrS, dw~lling houses, la.trnes1 .·

BANirHUA MUKTI MORCHA v. UNION (Bhagwat!;f) !17. ·• ' a11d. first aid end. meelical facilities in· particular. and other. A • ·.,safety .and welfare provisions in general, to·"the s&tisfaction : • of the competent authorities under ·the aforesaid Acts, rules and regulations . . and . . also to the satisf;ction . of-the District Migistrate concerrn;d .. In the case of non-compliance. of .

any Of the provisions of the enactments as _aforesaid, the St.ate Government. or any officer· authorised by it in thi_s B behalf. may terminate ·the .contract by giving one monws. nJtice with forfeiture of security depo_sited or _in the alten1ative .• the State L_abo.ur Department may remedy the breach/ ·. · breaches by providing. the welfare and ·.safety· measures as --~, provided in_ the ·aforosaid enactments at the expense and cost of the contractor/contractors. The amount thu.s .spent . . . . - c shall be recovered from the cont;actor/contractors by the Industries .. Department and reimbursed to Labour Depart- 1nent.'' , ~ ·

'\ The State of Haryana is therefore, in any event, bound to take action to enforce the provisions of the "Mines Act J952 and the Mines D Rules 1955 "and other "Rules and Regulations made .under that Act. . ,. for the :benefit of the workmen: · · • We may then turn to the provisions of Inter-State Migrant . Warkm~n (Regulation· of Employment and Conditions· of Service)· Act, 197~ (hereinafter referred lo as the Inter-State Migrnnt Workmen· E . A't) .. ' This Act was brought into force in the State of Haryana with

- offe;;t frnnr 2nd OctQber 19.80 and the authorities under ihis Act were oil notifjod 21st July 1982. ·We may, therefore, proteed on .the basis that the provisions of this Act becairie enforceable, if not from 2nd Ootobor 1980 at least from 21st July 19.82. Now this Act by sub- ?' . section (4) df Section (I) applies to every establishment in ·which : five or more· .inter-State migrant )VOrkmen are· employ~d or were eniploy,od. on any day of the preceding twelve months .·and so also . . it applies to every. coritraCtor who employs or employed five or more . inter-State migrant· workmen on any' day of. ihe preceding twdve· months. Section (Z) sub~section (I) Clause (b) of the Act .defin<s contractor, in ;elation· to an establishment, to mean •·a· pencn who .G' undertakes (whether as.an independent ccintr~cicr, agent, ·mp1c}'c or otherwise) to produce a given result for the establishment, .ether ·than a· mere. supply "of good~ and ariicles of manufactnre ·to such· 'establishment, .by the employment of workme.n or to supply workmen to the establishment, and includes a sub-contractor, khatedar, sardsr, H. · agent or any ,other person, by whatever nam.e called, who recruits •

' ll8 " SUPREME COURT REP<{RTS [1984] 2.s.c.a.

• A or employs -workmen.'' c;Jause (e) of sub-section' (I) of Section (2) defines "inter-State migrant workmen" to means "any person who is recruited'by or through a contractor in one State under an agreell\ent or other arrangement for employment in an establishment in· another State, whether with or without the knowledge of the principal employer · in relation to' .such establishment." The expression "principal- B;. employer" is defined by clause (g) of sub-section (I) of Section 2 to mean "in relation .to a mine, the owner or agent of the fuine and - ' where a person has been named· as the manager of th.e mine, the ' " . ·rerson so named." Obviously, therefore,. t):ie mine-lessees and . owners.of stone crushers in the present case would be principal em- ployers within the meaning of that· expression ·as used in the lnter- c State Migrant Workmen Act. Section 4 provides for ·registration of every principal employer of an establishment to 'which the Act ·applies· and Section 6 enacts that no principal employer of an establish- ment to which this Act applies, shall ·employ inter-State migrant workmen in the. establishment unless a certificate of registration in . respect of such establishment is issued under the Act in force. Similarly, D Section .8 sub-section (1) provides that with.effect from such date as the appropriate Government may be ·Notification in the Official Gazette appoint no contractor to. wl.tom the Act applies shall recruit a · any person in State for the purpose of eftiploying hi1il in any esta- blishment situated in another State, ex~ept unper and in accordance. with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer appointed E b/the Central Government who has jurisdietion in relation. to the area wherein the recruitment is made, nor shall be employ as workmen for the· execution of any' work in ·any establishment in . any State, I / persons from another State excent under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer appointed by the appropriate Government having· jurisdiction in relation to the )( F area wherein the_ establishment is situated. Sub-section (2) of Section· 8 declares. that a licence· under· sub-section (1) may contain such" conditions including, in particular, the terms an~ conditions of the agreement or other arrangelljent under which the workmen will be recruited, the remuneration payable, hours of work, fixation of wages and other 'esseritial amenities in respect of the inter-State migrant G. workmen, as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with the Rules, if any, made under-Section 35. ·Section 12 imposes certain duties and obUgations on contractors which include inter cilia the duty to issue to every inter-State migrant wor!<man a . pass-book containing various particulars regarding recruitment and employment of the worKrn.an as also to pay to the workman the return fare from the place of·employment to the place of·residencc

• ' BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA v. u.Nl0N (Bhagwati, J,) 119 '. in the home State when he ceases to be employed, .Rule 23 of the A Inter-State .Migrant Workn:en (Regulation -0f Employment and • Conditions of Service) Central Rule$ 1980 (hereinafter referred to as inter-State Migrant Workmen Rules) sets out· certain additional . ' particulars which must be inchided in the .pass•book to be issued tb every inter-State migrant workmen. Section 13 then proceeds to lay down the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions B .. of service of an i9ter-State .migrant workman and provides inter alia that in no case shall a inter-State migrant workman be paid less than the w~ges fixed under the Minimum Wages Act 1948, and the wages shall be paid to.an.inter-State migrant workman in cash. The deiai!ed particulars in regard to wages payable to an ·inter-State migt~nt workman are laid down in Rules 25 to 35 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen ·Riiles. The!) follows Section 14 which provides that c there shall be paid by the contractor to every inter-State' migrant workman at the time of recruitment, a displacement allowance and ' the amount of displacement allowance shair not be refundable but shall be in ·addition to the wages or other amounts payable to 'bim. There is also a provision made in Section 15 for payment to an inter- D state migrant workman of a journey allowance of a sum not .less tha~ the fare from the.place of residence. in his State to the place of work in the other State, both for outward and return ]ourneys and this Section also enacts that the workman shall be entitled to. payruent of wages during the period of such journeys as if he was bn duty . . Section 16 lays a duty on .. every contractor employing inter-State E migrant workmen in connection with the work of an establishment

- t; provide various other.facilities particulars of which are to be found . in Rules 36. to 45 ef the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Rules. These facilities inc)ude p:iedical facilities, protective clothing, drinking \vater, latrines, urinals and washing facilities, rest rooms, canteens,· creche and residential accommodation. The obligation to provide F is these facilities. in relation to the . inter-State Migrant Wo.rkmen. employed in -an establishment to which the Act applies. But this liability is not confined. only· to the co11tractor, because Section 18 provides in .so many terms that .if any allowance required to be paid under-~ection 14 or I 5 to an. inter-State migrant .W 0rkman is not . paid by lihe contractor or if any facility specified jn section 16 is not . G pro.vided for the benefit of such workman, such allowance shall be .... paid or as the case may .be, the facility shall be provided by the principal ·employer within such time as may be prescribed by the· Rules and .all the allowances paid by the principal employer or all the expenses incurred )Jy him in this connection may be recovered l;iy him from H • tM contractor either by deduction from. tJie amount payable .to the

.120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A cemtractor or as debt payable by the contractor.. Section :Zs & 2~. make .it an offence for any o.ne. to contravene. any of th.e provisions • _, of .the Inter-State Migrant Workmen. Act or Inter-State Migrant · Workmen Rules and Section JO gives over-ridiHg effect to the pr(i. .. t. visions· of the Inter,State Migrant Workmen Act over any other law or any agreement or contract. of service or any standing orders. ·These B · are broadly the relevant provisions of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act and the Inter-State' Migrant Workmen Rules which may call ·for consideration. · .·~-

But· the question arises whether the Inter-State.- Migrant

c . · Workmen Act applies to the· workmen . -employed . in the stone . quarries · and· the stone crushers. Now it was not disputed· on behalf of the -,.~

State of·.Haryana and indeed It was clear from the Report of Dr. ' ... Patwardhan that inost of the workmen.employed in the stone quarries and stone crusheril come from Uttat ·Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh and there are only .a few' workmen from Haryana. It ls only if 5 or more out. of these D workmen .coming from States either than Haryana ate inter-State .· inigrant workmen within the meaning -of that expression as defined in Section. 2 sub-section (1) clause (e) of the Inter-State Mig'rant Workmen Act that the establishment in which .they are employed · · . would ·be covered by the lnter-State Migrant Workmen Act. It would. therefore have. to be determined in .case of each stone quarry E. fod each stone crusher whether there are 5 or.more inter-State migrant workmen employed iu· the establishment ana if there are, the provisions ·of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act and the Intet-State Migrant ·Workmen Rules would become applicable to ~ch· establishment. I The U;ion. of India in a submission filed on its behalf by Miss Subha- shini has taken up the stand that the wor)cmen en';.ployed in the stone· F . quarries and stone crushers ..·a.re coming to joip. the service: in th;e stone quarries. of their own volition and they are noi recruited by any agent for _being migrated from any State" and. "as such they do. not come under the definition of the term" inter-State migrant work- man. We would ~av: ordinarily been incliiied to accept this stat~inerit · made on behalf of the Union of India; but we find that, according G to the Report.of Dr. Patwardhan, the modus operandi that i~ followed for the purpose of r~cruitment of workmen is "that the stone crusher owners or th.e lessees holders ask the thekedar or jamadar of the mine tb ·fetch people from various States to ·w()rk in the mines" and some times "the janiadar ·or· thekedar COlljlIBUnicates. the nee.d fo~ H workers.to old hands· at the quai:rics·so that they could bring in pe.ople • on their return froin their villages or their respective States". Now

. BANDHUA. MUKTI MORCHA v. UNiON (Bhagwati, J.) 121

if what h.as been reported by Dr .. Patwar<lhan is true,ithere can be A • nu doubt that the workmen employed in the stone quarries and. stone " . crushers. would be inter-State migrant workmen. The thekedar or ·jamadar. who .is engaged by the mine lessees or the stone-crusher· owners to recruit workmen or employ them on behal( of the inine lessees or stone crusher owners would. clearly be a 'contractor' within ·the meaning.of that (erm as defined .in Section 2 sub-section (1) Clause B (b) and the workmen recruited. by or through him from .other States for employment in the stone quarries and stone crushers 'iii the State -J. of Haryana would undoubtedly be inter-State migrant ·workmep. ' Even when the thekedar or jal)ladar 'recruits or employs workmen · for the stone quarries and stone . crushers by sefiding word through the "old hands", the workmen so recrui~d 'or employed would be c inter-State migrant workmen, because the· "old hands", w.ould be really acting as agents of the thekedar or jamadar for the purpose of..recruiting or employing workmen. The· Inter-State Migrant W~rkmen Act being a piece of social· welfare legislation intended . to effectuate the Directive Principles of State Policy and ensure decent living and working conditions for the workmen .when they come from other States and ·are in a. totally strange environlnent. whe~e by. reason of .theii: poverty, ignorance. and. illiteracy, they would· be totally· unorganised and helpless and would become easy victims .. of illlploitation, it must be given a broad and expansive interpretatiop so as to preverit the mischief.and adhnce they remedy.and therefore, even when the workmen ·are recruited cir .employed by the jamadat or thekedar by operati~g through the "old hands';, they inu;t be regarded as inter-State _migrant workmen entitled to the benefit of · the provisions of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen 'Act and the IIiter-State Migrant Workmen RuleS'. The Report of Di. Patwardhan also poipts out one other aspect of the matter : according to him,_. there is 'invariably "an ·unc;lerstanding between the Jamadar or.thekedai and· the owners of stone crushers holding leases of stone 'quarries as to the.rate of output of stone. to be fed through the crushers" and thus the 'jamadar or thekedar is clearly a "contractor' of the stone crusher owners and the wor~en recruited or employed by him on behalf of the owners of stone ctushel's are inter,State·wigrant workmen. · We entireJY agree with this view put fo~wa:rd. by .Dr. Patwardhan. G 'or understanding between the jamadar . or thekedar on. .. in his Report arid we hav~ no doubt. that if there iS any a~reement the ·one hand · and the owners of ~tone crushers on•the other, that the Jamadar or ' thekedar will ensure a certain rate. of output of stone to ·be fed to the stone crushers, the jamadar· or thekedar would be a 'contractor' and H . the .. workmen recruited or einploye.d· by him on behalf of the stone .

p. 122 Copy page pinpoint