IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN IN AT CHANDIG F PUNJAB AND HARYANA NDIGARH v. CRWP-199-2025 Decided on : 09.01.202 01.2025
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN IN AT CHANDIG F PUNJAB AND HARYANA NDIGARH 130 Jaidul Ali State of Har of Haryana and others ersus Versus CRWP-199-2025 Decided on : 09.01.202 01.2025 . . . Petitioner( tioner(s) . . . Respondent( ndent(s) CORAM: AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SA E SANJAY VASHISTH ENT: Ms. Avneet Kaur, Advocate for ate for the petitioner. PRESENT: . **** SANJAY V AY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has b has been filed under Article 226 of th 6 of the Constitution titution of India praying for issuance uance of writ in the nature of Habea abeas Corpus dire directing the official respondents ndents to get detenues mentioned oned in paragraph raph No.7 of the petition, release eleased from the illegal custody o tody of respondents ndents No.5 to 7. 2. Learned counsel appearing on ng on behalf of the petitioner contend ontends that the peti he petitioner as well as the other dete r detenues so mentioned in the petitio petition had been en een engaged by respondent No. 5 to 7 to 7 at brick kiln-A.R.B Brick Fiel k Field, situated at V ed at Village Takri, Police Station an ion and Tehsil Bawal, District Rewar Rewari, Haryana, to , to work as labourers for preparin eparing raw bricks on a monthly salar y salary of Rs.18,00 .18,000/-. She further contends that o that on 06.12.2024 when the detenue etenues went to resp respondents No.5 to7 for getting the ing their salary, they started beating the detenues an ues and gave life threat. She submi submits that the detenues have bee ve been illegally det 5 to 7. lly detained by respondents No.5 to 7. 3. Learned counsel appearing on ing on behalf of the petitioner submi submits that she wi will be satisfied in case respond spondent No.2, who is the compete mpetent RASHMI 2025.01.09 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-199 199-2025 - 2 – authority in rity in terms of Section 16 and 17 nd 17 of the Bonded Labour Syste System (Abolition) lition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be r o be referred as 'the Act of 1976') 976') is directed to ed to take decision in terms of the jud the judgment rendered by this Court Court in the case of ase of Murti v. State of Punjab an ab and others (LPA No. 32 of 201 f 2013, decided on ed on 11.01.2013). The relevant ex ant extract of the said judgment read nt reads thus: 4. “It may be mentioned here tha e that the allegations of the appella ellant in the writ petition are that th at the alleged detenues mentioned ned in
Decision
para No.3 of the writ petition tion who are working as labourers ers at the brick kiln of respondent No t Nos.5 to 7 are being kept as bonde onded labours. There can indeed be d be no doubt that if a labourer ha er has been detained as bonded labou abour, it amounts to an offence und under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bound ounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 197 1976. We, however, clarify that the t the aforesaid observation does n es not mean that the allegations leve levelled by the appellant have bee been accepted. Suffice it to observe rve that under the Act, the Distri istrict Magistrate is under statutory tory obligation to hold a fact findin inding enquiry as and when a com complaint alleging violation of th of the provisions of Bonded Labour our (Abolition) Act, 1976 is receive eived. Since the appellant in the inst instant case has specifically averre verred that the persons mentioned in p in para No.3 of the writ petition hav n have been detained as bonded labo labourers, we allow this appeal an al and set-aside/modify the order date dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learne arned Single Judge to the extent tha t that the petitioner's writ petition tion is disposed of with a direction to n to the District Magistrate, Sangru ngrur, to treat this writ petition as a c s a complaint under the 1976 Act an ct and take immediate action in acco accordance with law, within a perio period of one week from the date of e of receiving a certified copy of th of this order alongwith a copy of the w the writ petition.” A further reference is also mad so made to the order passed in the cas the case of Gurnam rnam Singh v. State of Punjab an jab and others (CRWP No. 4666 o 4666 of RASHMI 2025.01.09 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP-199 199-2025 - 3 – 2020, decid decided on 08.07.2020), which reads reads thus: “Accordingly, this Criminal W al Writ Petition is disposed of with with a direction to District Magistrat strate, Fazilka to treat this petition a ion as a complaint under the Bonded nded Labour System (Abolition) Ac ) Act, 1976 and take immediate actio action in accordance with law, with within a period of one week from the the date of receiving a certified cop d copy of this order along with a copy opy of the writ petition.” 5. In view of the above, the insta e instant petition is disposed of with f with a direction to ion to respondent No.2–District Mag t Magistrate, Rewari, Haryana, to loo to look into the gri he grievance of the petitioner, as rais as raised in the instant petition and and in case any su any substance in the allegations is fou is found true, then to take appropria ropriate action unde under the Act of 1976, in accordance rdance with law, within a period of on d of one week from from the date of receipt of a certifie certified copy of this order along wi ng with copy of the of the criminal writ petition. 6. Criminal Writ Petition is dispos disposed of in terms as aforesaid. ary 09, 2025 January 09 Rashmi (SANJAY VASHISTH JUDGE STH) Whether spea Whether Repo speaking/reasoned: Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No RASHMI 2025.01.09 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document