IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 449 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 09, 2010 Natha Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for securing the release of the detenus, as mentioned in para 3 of the petition, from the custody of respondents No.4 and 5. Prayer has also been made for punishing respondents No.4 and 5 under the Bonded Labour System(Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for rehabilitation of the petitioner and the detenus. According to the petitioner, the detenus are his close relatives and friends. He, alongwith the detenus, have been working with respondents No.4 and 5 as labourers at the brick kiln owned by the Crl. Writ Petition No. 449 of 2010 -2- aforementioned respondents. Despite the same, respondents No.4 and 5 did not pay the wages to the petitioner and the detenus and kept them as bonded labourers. The petitioner, however, managed to escape from the clutches of respondents No.4 and 5 and filed the present petition. According to him, the detenus were made to work at the brick kiln against their wishes. Respondents No.4 and 5 have not been paying any wages to them. The musclemen kept by respondents No.4 and 5 have severely beaten the detenus and the petitioner. The detenus are, thus, bonded labourers of respondents No.4 and 5 and compelled to work at the brick kiln against their wishes and, that too, without any wages being paid to them. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the petition. The Parliament has enacted the Act in the year 1976 to provide for the abolition of bonded labour system so as to prevent the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker section of the people. Section 10 of the Act requires the State Government to confer such powers and impose such duties on a District Magistrate as may be necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out. Such a District Magistrate may specify the Officer, subordinate to him, to exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties so conferred or imposed, within the specified local limits. Section 12 of the Act lists the duties of the District Magistrate or/and Crl. Writ Petition No. 449 of 2010 -3- Officer authorized by him to enquire whether any bonded labour system or any other form of forced labour is being enforced by anyone within the local limits of his jurisdiction and if, as a result of such enquiry, any person is found to be enforcing the bonded labour system, he shall forthwith take necessary action to eradicate the enforcement of such forced labour. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has adequate remedy available to him to apply to the District Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act so as to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly carried out. Admittedly, no such application or representation has been made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate. Instead, he has rushed to this Court for filing the present habeas corpus petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Bandhuva Mukti Morcha V Union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 802, Neeraja Chaudhary V State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 1099, Mukesh Advani V State of M.P., AIR 1985 SC 1363, People's Union for Democratic Rights and others V Union of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 1473 and Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu, V Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 to submit that as respondents No.4 and 5 have committed the offences under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, therefore, an enquiry be conducted by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Tarn Taran and to launch criminal prosecution against respondents No.4 and 5 and, further, to rehabilitate the bonded labourers Crl. Writ Petition No. 449 of 2010 -4- as provided under the Act. However, such a stage has not reached so far. The petitioner has only alleged that the detenus are being kept forcibly at the brick kiln by respondents No. 4 and 5 and, that too, without paying wages to them and, instead, requiring them to work against their wishes. Only after the petitioner files an application/representation to the District Magistrate and an enquiry follows that it can be ascertained as to whether the detenus are being kept at the brick kiln by respondents No.4 and 5 against their wishes or not. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit an application/representation to the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran as contemplated by Section 12 of the Bonded Labour System(Abolition) Act, 1976. In case, any such application/representation is made, the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran shall take appropriate action thereupon within a period of ten days. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 09, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1