http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: MUKESH ADVANI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/05/1985

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1363            1985 SCR  Supl. (1) 126  1985 SCC  (3) 162        1985 SCALE  (1)981

ACT:      Social Action  Litigation-Exploitation of  the  workmen from Tamil Nadu by the Mines contractors deprecated-Need for the State  protection of the poor and needy laborers who are unable  to  negotiate  on  terms  of  equality,  retierated- Constitution of India, 1950. Articles 38, 41, 42, 43, Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1974-Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

HEADNOTE:      Pursuant to  an investigative  report  in  the  "Indian Express" dated  September 14,  1982, one  of  the  advocates practising in the Supreme Court addressed a letter to one of the Judges  of the Supreme Court depicting the horrid plight of bonded  labour from  Tamil  Nadu  working  in  the  stone quarries at  Raisen in  Madhya Pradesh.  It was alleged: (a) Everyone recruited  were paid  a reimbursible advance of Rs. 1,000/- but  the method of accounting is so manipulated that the  debt   instead  of  getting  wiped  out,  increased  in geometrical  proportion   and  no   workmen  can   have  the employment until  the entire debt repaid which is beyond the reach of  the workmen;  (b) The working conditions were bad. There was  no weekly  holiday. Sanitary  conditions were  in deplorable state. The workmen were not paid any wages during rainy seasons,  since the  mines were  shut off;  (c) Not  a single legislation  enacted for  the welfare  of  labour  is implemented or  respected and (d) Due to the inaction of the Labour Department  of the  Centre and the State like absence of a  notification specifying  minimum wages  for the labour force employed in the mines, resulting in poultry and meagre payment  there   is  naked  and  unabashed  exploitation  of workmen. The report called for by the Supreme Court from the District Judge  Bhopal confirmed  the said  allegations  and further revealed  that  (a)  on  a  complaint  preferred  48 labourers were  released by  the Labour Department of Madhya Pradesh; (b)  a complaint  has been  lodged with  the police under the  Bonded Labour  System (Abolition)  Act, 1976; (c) two or  three cases  against the Contractors were instituted in fact  and the said cases were pending; (d) the piece-rate method of  paying wages  for digging a standard ’Khanti’ has resulted sometime to no payment at all for both the male and female labour  employed; (e)  a team of police force arrived

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

from Tamil  Nadu and  liberated the  workmen and repatriated them to  Tamil Nadu  and (f)  the newspaper  publicity had a very salutary  and desired  effect in  as  much  as  various contractors have  given up  efforts to  recover the advances which was a good achievement.      The State  of Madhya  Pradesh admitted  the findings of the District  Judge, Bhopal  and pointed out that in respect of  flagstone  mines,  the  appropriate  Government  is  the Central Government under the payment of 127 Bonus Act,  1965 and  the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Tamil Nadu Government  have clarified as to how the labourers were duped and  taken to Madhya Pradesh and confirmed the release of the labourers by their State Police.      The Court  in the  circumstances directed  the Union of India as  appropriate  Government  to  issue  a  preliminary notification under  section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 setting out  its proposal  for information of persons likely to be  affected thereby  and specifying a date not less than two months  from the  date  of  the  Notification  on  which proposals will  be taken  into consideration.  The Union  of India accordingly  issued necessary notification dated March 24,1982 and  October 31,  1983 setting out the minimum piece rate of wages for various occupations in flagstone mines.      Disposing of the petition, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  Undoubtedly, mines  have to  work  in  larger public and  national interest. Therefore, in the very nature of things,  there  will  be  contractors  and  the  workmen. Contractor as  is his  wont, to  augment  his  profit  which motivates him  to take  contract and  who is not shown to be altruistic, is  bound to  exploit the workmen. The notorious method of  exploitation is,  pay as  much less  as  possible despite all  pretensions of  Minimum Wages  and  Payment  of Wages  Act,  take  work  for  longer  hours,  prohibited  by beneficent statutes  like the  Mines Act,  the Factories Act and  like   statutes.  Both  these  when  jointly  practised enlarges the  profit. The  law is  that no  employer can pay less than  the minimum  wages.  But  this  remains  a  paper promise unless  an effective  implementation  machinery  not overawed  by   these  wealthy   and  generally  unscrupulous contractors who can spread their tentacles over officials is set up. [133 H; 134 A-B; D]      (The court  expressed the  hope that  such a  machinery would be  set up  jointly by  the Union  of  India  and  the Government of the State of Madhya Pradesh.) [134 E]      2. The  State in  discharge  of  its  obligation  under Articles 38,  41, 42  and 43  must extend  the  umbrella  of protection to  these poor  and needy and unprotected workmen who are unable to negotiate on terms of equality and who may accept any  terms to  stave of hunger and destitution. It is the State which must interpose between these two unequals to eschew exploitation. [134 B-C]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1232 of 1982.      Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.      Mukesh Advani Petitioner. (Not present)      A.V. Rangam, Ravindra, Bana, A.K. Sanghi, Ms. H. Khatun and R.N. Paddar for the Respondent. 128      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J.  One Mukesh  Advani, Advocate  practising  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

this Court  addressed a  letter to one of the Judges of this Court on September, 23, 1982 annexing thereto a cutting from the ’Indian  Express’ dated September 14, 1982 depicting the horrid plight of the bonded labour working in stone quarries at Raisen in Madhya Pradesh.      Broadly  stated   the   allegations   were   that   the contractors who  operate the mines recruit labour force from Tamilnadu. Everyone  recruited to  work was  paid roughly an advance of  Rs. 1,000 and then brought to work at the mines. This amount  of Rs.  1,000 reimbursible by deductions spread over from  month to  month from  the wages  payable  to  the bonded  labourers,  but  the  method  of  accounting  is  so manipulated that  the debt  of Rs. 1,000 is never wiped out, and on  the contrary it increases by geometrical proportion. The workman  goes  deeper into the mire of indebtedness with the result  that the  octopus hold of the contractor becomes all enveloping  and the workmen becomes a bonded labour. The working conditions,  to say  the least,  were  of  the  18th century  vintage.  There  is  no  weekly  holiday.  Sanitary conditions are  in deplorable state. During the rainy season the operation  of the mines is shut off and consequently the workmen are not paid wages. Not a single legislation enacted for the  welfare of  labour is  implemented or respected. No workman can  leave the  employment until  the entire debt is repaid which  is beyond  the reach  of the workmen. The only way to  escape the  clutches of  the contractor  is for  the workman to change the master who by a paper advance pays off the former  contractor and  the cycle  is repeated.  It  was alleged that  the functionaries  of the Labour Department of the Centre  and the  State by  sheer inaction  if not active collaboration on  their part  help in  exploitation  of  the labour. It was specifically alleged that in the absence of a notification specifying  minimum wages  for the labour force employed in  the mines the payment is paultry and meagre and there is naked and unabashed exploitation of workmen.      As part  of social  action litigation  this letter  was treated as a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and by the Order dated October 7, 1982 notice was ordered to be issued  to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bhopal. The District Judge Bhopal was directed to proceed to the site of stone quarries at Raisen and 129 ascertain the  existence of  bonded labour  and to  submit a detailed report  of the  working conditions  in the mines. A further direction was given that the District Judge may take assistance of  Mr. N.K.  Singh who had exposed and portrayed the plight of the bonded labour in the ’Indian Express’. The Committee for Implementing Legal Aid Schemes was directed to deposit Rs. 1,000 with the Registrar of the Supreme Court to meet the  expenses of the District Judge in carrying out his assignments.      Pursuant to  the  aforementioned  order,  the  District Judge submitted  a detailed  report in  which it was pointed out that the labour force recruited from Tamil Nadu had made a complaint  on  May  24,  1980  to  the  Secretary,  Labour Department, Government  of Madhya  Pradesh that  the  quarry contractor (Abdul  Rehman) was  giving inhuman  treatment to Tamil labourers  working in  Surai mines. This complaint was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Raisen to enquire into the  matter. He submitted a report that 48 workmen from Tamilnadu have  been released  and  they  have  returned  to Tamilnadu. On  September 8, 1980 a written report was lodged at Police  Station by  seven workmen  six of  whom were from Tamilnadu,  in   which  it   was  alleged  that  the  quarry contractor (Hamid Khan) was harassing them by making a claim

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

that each  one had to repay Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 16,000 towards the advances taken by them. It was not possible to ascertain how  this   huge  amount  was  worked  out.  One  additional complaint was  that the workmen were paid less than what was agreed at  the time of recruitment and that whenever a voice of  protest  was  raised  the  workmen  were  physically  be laboured.  It   was  alleged   that  their   movements  were circumscribed and  that they  were not  free  to  leave  the employment or  to move  away from the habitat. In short they lived a captive life. The District Judge pointed out that on this complaint  an offence  was  registered  at  the  Police Station under Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. At the time  of the  report, the  case was pending. The dilemma which the  District Judge faced in the course of enquiry was vividly described  when he pointed out that when the workman is taken  into confidence  and is  assured of  protection he gives out  a story  of harassment  and torture by the quarry contractor but  when officially  questioned he  is afraid of making necessary disclosures. But apart from this dichotomy, the District  Judge noticed  that Labour Enforcement Officer instituted two  cases  against  the  quarry  contractor  for recovery of  Rs. 11,000 and odd for short payment and at the time of the report the cases were pending. 130      The District  Judge further pointed out that there is a piece rate  method of  paying wages.  The piece  rate ranges from Rs.  10 to  Rs. 20  for a standard ’Khanti’ which is of the size 10’x10’x1’ (depth). A pair consisting of a male and a female  is assigned  to a  ’Khanti’ and after a hard-day’s toil the  average earning ranges between Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 per day out  of which  unauthorized and impermissible deductions are made  leaving the  workman very  little to  survive. The chances of  not earning  any thing  even after  a hard day’s work were very high in as much as after the ’Khanti’ is dug, the flagstone  appears and  that stone  is to  be cut nicely into slabs of specified sizes. If the slabs are not properly severed from  the stone,  the workman  is not paid anything. The total  earning also depends upon the number of slabs cut by the  workman. The  rate is usually around Rs. 2 per cubic foot. Though  the Labour  Department was  of the  view  that unofficially a  workman could earn Rs. 650 per fortnight, in practice this, was shown to be a paper figure.      On the  enquiry by  the District  Judge, the contractor admitted that  advance payment  is made to every workman and it is  recovered by  deduction from the wages earned by each workman at the time of payment.      It also  transpired that workmen from Tamilnadu were so harassed that  on a  complaint  received  by  the  Tamilnadu Government,  a   team  of  the  police  force  arrived  from Tamilnadu, liberated  the workmen  and repatriated  them  to Tamilnadu.      The District  Judge also found that restraints were put on the  workmen leaving the job but once a quarry contractor on being subjected to detailed enquiry, gave up any claim to recover the advances made by him, the restraints disappeared with the result that according to the District Judge, at the relevant time of the enquiry, there was no bonded labour.      The  District   Judge  concluded   that  the  newspaper publicity had  a very salutary and desired effect in as much as various  contractors have given up efforts to recover the advances and  according to  the District Judge it was a good achievement. A  note of  caution  is  sounded  that  if  the appropriate follow-up  action is  not taken  by the District Vigilance Committee  and District  Magistrate to ensure that quarry contractors who were then making an oral announcement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

of giving  up of  advances  debts  of  the  workmen  without executing documents  evidencing valid  discharge, a sinister attempt may 131 be made  to go  back upon  discharge of  debts and  one  may return to square one.      The District Judge also pointed out that there is total absence of  implementation of  the labour laws applicable to these quarries.  It was  pointed out  that  as  the  Central Government is  the appropriate  Government it  has appointed only one  inspector for  II districts  with the  result that provisions of several laws beneficial to workmen are flouted with  impunity.   A  glaring   case  pointed  out  was  that provisions of  the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 would apply to some of  the quarries  proprio vigor but there is no whisper of its implementation.      The District  Judge concluded that the follow-up action as indicated  by him  will relieve harassment of workmen and ameliorate the working conditions.      The State  of Madhya  Pradesh in  its counter-affidavit broadly admitted  the findings of the learned District Judge and it  is pointed  out that  in respect of flagstone mines, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. It was also pointed  out that  the Central  Government has taken no steps to  prescribe minimum  wages under  the Minimum  wages Act.      As the  report of  the District  Judge showed  that the workmen who  were complaining of harassment and torture were already released  and discharged  and at  the relevant  time there was  no bonded labour the Court concentrated on giving direction for  taking suitable  steps for  implementation of the labour  laws. In  this connection  the Court  gave  high priority to the statutory prescription of minimum wages that the quarry  contractor would be bound to pay and which would also simultaneously  provides  shield  against  unauthorised deductions or  exploitation by paying less than the minimum. With this  end in view the Court directed by its order dated November 23,  1982 to  serve notices  of the petition on the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union of India.      One Thirumati  J.  Anjani  Dayanand,  Commissioner  and Secretary,  Social   Welfare   Department,   Government   of Tamilnadu filed  an affidavit  in  response  to  the  notice issued by  this  Court.  The  recitals  therein  are  blood- curdling. It  was pointed  out that  instances of kidnapping families of  gullible illiterate  rural  poor  from  various parts in  Tamilnandu to  Madhya Pradesh  under the  guise of providing 132 them lucrative  employment on  attractive  remuneration  and then unlawfully  confining them  as bonded  labour in Raisen and other  districts in Madhya Pradesh came to the notice of Tamilnadu Police.  A police  team thereupon  from Pudukottai visited Raisen  and rescued  II persons  including 5 females during July.  1982. The  police found  that the workmen were held in bondage and that there was no adequate provision for food and  shelter and  that they  were forcibly detained and effectively  prevented   from   communicating   with   their relations by  tampering with  their mails.  The police staff which  went  to  enquire  in  the  matter  received  hostile treatment from  the quarry  contractors. Another police team visited Raisen  on August  20, 1982  and rescued  20 persons including  8  females  belonging  to  6  families  from  the quarries in  Raisen district.  It transpired  that one  A.L. Subramaniam and  Chokkalingam of Tamilnandu, assisted by his relations  and   in  collusion   with   quarry   contractors

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

systematically carried  on this  trade of  enticing gullible poor people  drawing rosy  picture of  employment  and  then torturing them  by exploiting them. Ultimately a team of two police Inspectors, 3 sub-inspectors, 2 head-constables and 2 police constables  from the Crime Branch, C.I.D. assisted by Armed Escort  Party from  Madurai were  deputed with a demi- official letter  from  the  Deputy  Inspector    General  of Police, C.I.D.  Crime Branch  Madras to  his counterpart  in Madhya Pradesh  seeking assistance  to break  this  cell  of slavery. We  need not  further describe the gory details but ultimately it  was pointed out that after these workmen were released it  transpired that  the inhuman quarry contractors had bled  them white.  Being victims  of total exploitation, the Chief  Minister of  Tamilnadu sanctioned  a sum  of  Rs. 1,000 per family for the rehabilitation and till the date of the  affidavit, Rs. 63,000 were spent in this behalf.      By our order dated February 18, 1983 the Union of India was directed to come out with proposals setting out concrete steps to  prescribe minimum  wages on  piece rate  basis for various occupations  in flagstone  mines  and  also  suggest effective steps  for improving  the  life-style  of  workmen working in  these mines, as also the machinery for effective implementation.      As the  progress was analogous to slow-motion news, Mr. K. G. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General of India appeared and assured  us that  Union of  India would  extend all  co- operation to  help the workmen and take up necessary follow- up steps. 133      As the  thing moved  very slowly,  the  Court  directed Union  of   India  as  appropriate  Government  to  issue  a preliminary notification  under Sec.  5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948  setting  out  its  proposal  for  information  of persons likely  to be affected thereby and specifying a date not less  than two  months from the date of the notification on which proposals will be taken into consideration.      After taking  a number  of adjournments,  one Bishamber Nath, Under  Secretary to  the Government  of India  in  the Department of  Labour filed his affidavit in reply on behalf of the  Union af India specifically stating therein that the question of  issuing of  notification under  Sec. 5 is under active  consideration   by  the   Ministry  of   Labour  and Rehabilitation, Department of Labour. It was further pointed out that as minimum wages are likely to be piece rate wages, it may  become necessary  to appoint  a  Committee  or  pre- publication of  the proposals.  It was stated that some data has to be collected and for this purpose on a priority basis a team  of officers  is being  sent to Raisen to collect the required information.  When the  matter came  up before this court on September 26, 1983, Mr. Gujral, learned counsel who appeared on  behalf of  the Union  of India made a statement that a  preliminary notification  would be issued by the end of the  first week of November, 1983. The Union of India did take the  promised action  and  a  preliminary  notification dated October 31, 1983 was placed on record. The schedule to the notification  sets out  minimum piece  rate of wages for various occupations in flagstone mines. On April 16, 1980, a copy of  the notification dated March 24, 1982 issued by the Government of  India, Ministry  of Labour and Rehabilitation specifying the  minimum wages  for  various  occupations  in flagstone mines  was submitted  to the Court. There ends the first step  to be  taken as  part of  a vigorous campaign to eschew exploitation  by person who on account of money power exploit the  poor and  the needy. This is not the end of the journey. It is just a beginning.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

    This petition  must now  stand disposed  of because the report of the District Judge referred to in the earlier part of this  judgment clearly  shows that  there  is  no  bonded labour working in flagstone mines at Raisen.      Undoubtedly, mines  have to  work in  larger public and national interest.  Therefore, in the very nature of things, there will  be contractors and the workmen. Contractor as is his wont, to augment 134 his profit  which motivates  him to take contract and who is not shown to be altruistic, is bound to exploit the workmen. The notorious method of exploitation is, pay as much less as possible  despite  all  pretensions  of  Minimum  Wages  and Payment of Wages Act, take work for longer hours, prohibited by beneficent statutes like the Mines Act, the Factories Act and  like   statutes.  Both  these  when  jointly  practised enlarges  the   profit.  The   State  in  discharge  of  its obligation under  Arts. 38,  41, 42  and 43  must extend the umbrella  of   protection  to   these  poor  and  needy  and unprotected workmen  who are unable to negotiate on terms of equality and  who may  accept any  terms to stave off hunger and destitution.  It  is  the  State  which  must  interpose between these two unequals to eschew exploitation.      As a  first step,  the notification prescribing minimum wages has been issued. The law which need not be restated is that no  employer can  pay less  than the minimum wages. But this  remains   a  paper   promise   unless   an   offective implementation machinery  not overawed  by these wealthy and generally unscrupulous  contractors  who  can  spread  their tentacles over officials, is set up. We conclude with a hope that such  a machinery  would be set up jointly by the Union of India  and the Government of the State of Madhya Pradesh. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. S.R. 135