JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhan and N.K. Sodhi, JJ.
1. It is distressing to note that the malady of bonded labour and debt bondage is still prevalent in the country even after 46 years of the coming into force of the Constitution of India and enactment of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, 20 years back.
2. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release petitioner No. 2 and her family from the debt bondage of Gurdial Singh respondent No. 3.
3. Petitioner No. 1 is a public spirited person and Chairman of Bandi Chhod Dal Forum which spear heads the movement of workmen in the State of Punjab and help them to get rid of this social evil of bonded labour has filed this petition in the public interest. Manjit Kaur wife of Sukhdev Singh has been joined as petitioner No. 2.
4. Allegations made in the petition are that Sukhdev Singh husband of petitioner No. 2 was attached as agricultural labour with one Gurdial Singh respondent No. 3. At the time of this employment about four years back Sukhdev Singh was given a debt of Rs. 7,000/- by respondent No. 3. It is’ alleged that Sukhdev Singh along with petitioner and other family members namely Punna 55 years (mother-in-law) Miss Kiran 3 years (daughter) and Ravi 11 years (son) were shifted by respondent No. 3 from his farm at Punnia to Abhadan against their wishes. Respondent No. 3 did not pay full wages to Sukhdev Singh wages were being adjusted against the interest which may raise from the loan of Rs. 7000/- which had been advanced to Sukhdev Singh. Sukhdev Singh was paid inadequately and it was difficult for him to make both ends meet. Apart from this respondent No. 3 also forced Mrs. Punna mother-in-law of petitioner No. 2 to work as a Labour at his farm without paying any wages under inhuman condition from morning till evening without giving any rest day. It is further alleged that respondent No. 3 did not permit Sukhdev Singh to celebrate the ‘Pir Niqah’ ceremony of his son. He was also not allowed to attend the marriage of his sister which was held on 5.6.1995. Persons kept in illegal private custody were also given beatings off and on.
5. Petitioner No. 2 made an application to the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, on 14.7.1995 for the release of her family members from the debt bondage but so far no action has been taken. An application to the same effect was sent to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, but no action was taken in the matter. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to release the family of petitioner No. 2 i.e. her husband, her mother-in-law and her children from the custody of respondent No. 3 and the obligation of debt bondage; further prayer is to rehabilitate them suitably.
6. On 1.8.1995, notice of motion was issued for 3.8.1995 with a direction to the Advocate General, Punjab, (who accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2) to send a telegraphic message, to the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, to depute some senior police officer to raid the residence of respondent No. 3 or any other place to get the persons mentioned above released from the custody of respondent No. 3 and to produce them in Court on the date fixed i.e. 3.8.1995. Sukhdev Singh, Mrs. Punna and minor Ravi were produced before this Court on 3.8.1995. Kiran was stated to be a way with her maternal grand mother. Sukhdev Singh, Mrs. Punna and minor Ravi were ordered to be released from the custody of respondent No. 3 forthwith.
7. In order to ascertain the facts stated in the petition this Court directed District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, to hold an enquiry after summoning respondent No. 3 and submit a report after recording evidence on the allegations made in the petition. Copy of the petition along with the order passed by this Court on 1.8.1995 was sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, immediately with a direction to him to submit his report to this Court within two months of the receipt of a copy of the order.
8. District and Sessions Judge Jalandhar submitted his report dated 21.10.1995 alongwith the relevant evidence and documents holding that Sukhdev Singh his wife Manjit Kaur and mother Ptinna have been made to work by Gurdial Singh respondent No. 3 as bonded labourers in obligation of the sum of Rs. 7000/- advanced to Sukhdev Singh and that respondent No. 3 exploited the family for his own benefit.
9. Respondent No. 3 was asked to file his reply to the allegations which he has filed. The allegations made in the petition have been denied.
10. Article 23(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits “begar” and other similar forms of forced labour and further provides that any contravention of the said prohibition shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. Article 35(a)(ii) of the Constitution not only confers the power on Parliament to provide for punishment for the contravention of the said provisions of Article 23(1) but expressly takes away the power of the State Legislature to make any legislation with regard to the said matter. President of India on 24.10.1975 issued Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Ordinance, 1975 which was later on replaced by the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reasons for enactment of this Act as given in the statement of objects and reasons are as under :-
” There still exists in different parts of the country a system of usury under which the debtor or his descendants or dependents have to work for the creditor without reasonable wages or with no wages in order to extinguish the debt. At times, several generations work under bondage for the repayment of a paltry sum which had been taken by some remote ancestor. The interest rates are exhorbitant and such bondage cannot be interpreted as the result of any legitimate contract or agreement. The system implies the infringement of the basic human rights and destruction of the dignity of human labour.”
11. It is unfortunate that in spite of the clear mandate of the Constitution given in Article 23 and the enactment of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, the allegations of the evil of bonded labour/debt bondage are still being made/practised in the country. Enactment of law by itseb” is not sufficient. It has to be seen that the same is enforced with full rigour and vigour. In the present case, in spite of the petitioner’s making application to the District Magistrate, Jalandhar, and the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, no action was taken Under Section 12 of the Act. It is the duty of the District Magistrate Under Section 12 of the Act or any other officer authorised by him to enquire whether after the enforcement of this Act any bonded labour system of any other form of forced labour is being forced by, or on behalf of, any resident within the local limits of his jurisdiction. If any person is found to be enforcing the bonded labour system or any other system of forced labour District Magistrate has been authorised to take action forthwith to eradicate the enforcement of such bonded labour. Vigilance Committees are to be constituted Under Section 13 and the functions of the Vigilance Committees have been given in Section 14 of the Act. Under Chapter VI of the Act, punishment has been provided for enforcement of bonded labour, advancement of bonded debt and for extracting bonded labour under the bonded labour system. Procedure for trial of such offence has been prescribed Under Section 21 of the Act. In view of the report submitted by the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 3 deserves to be tried for enforcement of bonded labour under Chapter VI of the Act in accordance with law. Bonded Labour/debt bondage is a curse of which the society must gel rid of at the earliest. It is the duty of the authorities under the Act to enforce the provisions of Bonded Labour Sys tem (Abolition) Act 1976 vigorously to give affect to the mandate given by the Constitution under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
12. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition with costs and direct and District Magistrate, Jalandhar to perform his duties Under Section 12 of the Act and prosecute respondent No. 3 under Ch. VI of the Act. The original report of the District and Sessions Judge along with the documents, copy of the writ petition, written statement filed by the respondents and the interim orders passed by this Court be sent to the District Magistrate Jalandhar, forthwith.
13. Nothing stated in this order shall be deemed an expression of opinion or finding against respondent No. 3 on merits of the dispute. It shall be open to respondent No. 3 to raise any defence which is available to him before the Magistrate trying him under the Act. Costs are assessed at Rs. 2000/- against respondent No. 3 which he shall tender in the Court of trial Magistrate to be paid to the petitioner.