IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18348 of 2009 Between: Mahaboobnagar District Palamoori Contract Labour Maistries Union, Rep. by its General Secretary, Mr. Krishna Kumar S/o. Sri Pedda Kurmaiah, R/o. Kanimatta, Kothakota Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (R.D.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Mahaboobnagar District Mahaboobnagar. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour Mahaboobnagar Mahaboobnagar District. 4 The Superintendent of Police Mahaboobnagar District Mahaboobnagar. .....RESPONDENS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 173 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD.II) Department dated 1-6- 2009 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of constitutional provisions of right to move freely and right to choose the employment of choice apart from principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ petition No.18348 of 2009 ORDER:- The matter is coming up for admission. 2. Heard the Counsel. 3. The learned A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj states that similar writ petition W.P.No.13824/2009, wherein G.O.Ms.No.173, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dt.1-6-2009 had been challenged, was dismissed by this Court by an order dt.25-8-2009 and the said Order is placed before this Court. 4. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner no doubt made certain submissions and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case in the writ petition rule nisi to be issued and the matter to be heard finally. 5. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in issuing G.O.Ms.No.173, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dt.1-6- 2009 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of constitutional provisions of right to move freely and right to choose the employment of choice apart from principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders. 6. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and elaborate grounds also had been specified as Grounds (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) as well. It is stated that the petitioner union is registered union having registered under Trade Union Act in the year 1998 with registration No.A-3228. It is also stated that even before registration also the petitioner union has been working for the cause of Maistries of Contract Labour as well as workers. There are about 300 members in the union. Therefore, they are interested for the cause of Maistries. The present writ petition is being filed questioning the Government Order issued by the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department in G.O.Ms.No.173, dt.1-6-2009. It is also further stated that the members of the union are Maistries residing in different villages of Mahaboobnagar District. They ek-out their livelihood through manual labour in projects, roads and buildings and other construction within the State and other States of our country and most of them belong to SC and ST communities. 7. Further it is stated that they used to go as migrant labour to work in different states leaving the old age parents and small kids at their houses. There are occasions even no communication even of any untoward incident which happens in the familieis. The contractors are not even allow them any time to leave the work spot. They are thus accustomed to work under the contractors in a measurably inhuman conditions. 8. It is also stated that Mahaboobnagar District itself is the second backward District in India and it is poverty stricken area without any source of water for irrigation. Therefore, the workers of this District are constrained to migrate as manual labourers to various part of our country and they are working as bonded labour under various contractors in many States in our Country. The contrctors take the workers from this District to far-away places in our contry and keep them as bonded labourers. The poverty forced these workers to save themselves from starvation to go to various places in various States in our country. 9. Further it is stated that the contract labour who are working as bounded labour mostly belongs to SC, ST and BCs and downtrodden people of society. Out of the said Sections of the Society, those who are unemployed became group leaders of workers. The workers are being taken to the contractors by their group leaders and the group leader used to get some commission. Thus, these group leaders are branded as Gumpu Mestries. They are nothing but “Big Coolie” and not rich people like the contractors. The labour themselves due to their family necessities like marriages of children, construction of houses, children education, ill health and like such necessities approach the Gumpu Mestries under unavoidable circumstances since the banks did not come to provide loans to them for such necessities. In turn the Gumpu Mestries will approach the contractor and the contractor will pay Rs.10,000/- each person and in case of both husband and wife they will pay Rs.20,000/-. In addition to the said amount depending upon the necessity the Group Leader will advance certain amounts i.e., Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- on payment of interest. The Gumpu Mestries are living on the commission paid by the contractor and offering loans on interest to the persons whom they engage in the form of advances. 10. Further it is also stated that it appears to the Government that these Gumpu Mestries are only responsible to the workers as bonded labour and they are luring the workers to become bonded labour. But it is fact that if proper facilities are provided to sustain their livelihood, they will not go as bonded labour. All these things are brought to the notice of the Government by way of representations by different organizations and have issued leaflets enlighten the situation of bounded labour including the group leader or Gumpu Mestries. These group leaders or Gumpu Mestries will not seen in isolation. They are part and parcel of the workers. They get coolie along with workers in addition to the commission. This is known factum to the workers as well as contractors. Unless one gets to the root of the issue, it will not be understood where the problem was. 11. It is also stated that workers out of dire necessities for work voluntarily move out of the District in search of work and the maistries are only facilitators in search of the work. Because they organize the workers, they are called as Gumpu Mestries. There is nothing wrong in organizing the workers in course of doing the work it cannot be attributed any offence toward maistries. There are no complaints from any of the workers against Gumpu Mestries. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 deals about “bonded labour, bonded debt and bonded labour system”. There is no bonded debt being incurred by any other labourers, there is no hereditary debts from parents of children. 12. It is also averred that they are to be recognized as agents of the contract and there is no independent role while working as agent at the same time. They worked as labourers along with others by taking wages. Thus, they are claiming dual role either as workers and agent of the contractor. Therefore, by doing the work of maistries, they will get commission in addition to the wage of the worker. 13. Further it is averred that the G.O.Ms.No.173 was issued with a wrong presumption that the Gumpu Mestries are responsible for the posting of the labour into bounded labour and steps shall be taken to free the labour from the bondage. 14. It is also averred that bondage of labour is not caused by the Gumpu Mestries, it is of their poverties, illiteracy and backwardness, it happens. These Gumpu Mestries are not to be seen in isolation, they are working along with them. Due to the necessities of workers they approach the Gumpu Mestries in search of work and work under contractors along with other workers. The eradication of bounded labour, migrant labour would not be achieved by taking stringent steps of prosecuting Gumpu Mestries under Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, unless the root cause is identified by the Government to eradicate the evil system of bounded labour. 15. It is also further averred that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.173, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dt.1-6- 2009 refers (1) Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (2) The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (3) The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and (4) National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. The object is to rescue labourers from the vicious cycle of poverty and indebtedness. It is found in the Government Order that the bounded labour are forced by Gumpu Mestries, therefore a stringent and deterrent criminal action is to be taken against the perpetrators to release bounded labour by enforcing the law. 16. As already aforesaid, certain Grounds also had been raised and the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 had been referred to and the Payment of Wages Act and the other Labour Legislations also had been referred to. In W.P.No.13824/2009 by order dt.25-8-2009 this Court observed as hereunder:- “Submissions in elaboration had been made that inasmuch as the prohibition if any in the light of the definition of “advance” would not be attracted in the case of “advances” which if any be made by these “Gumpu Mestris” in the light of the same since there is no bar or prohibition in Law the issuance of G.O. is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This appears to be the main ground of attack by the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner. Article 23 of the Constitution of India deals with prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour and the said provision reads as hereunder:- “(1) Traffic in human beings and beggar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. (2) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.” In this context, it may not be out of context if the observations made in BANDHU MUKTI MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIA[1] are referred to. The law relating to exploitation of labour and avoidance thereof and the steps to be taken in this regard being well-settled, the same need not elaborately be discussed. In the light of the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit of R.1 & R.2, and also on a careful reading of the contents of the G.O. under challenge, which had been already specified supra, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that after considering all the aspects and carefully examining and also keeping in view the true spirit of Article 23 of the Constitution of India, the Government had thought it fit to issue a G.O. for the purpose of avoiding exploitation. This Court is thoroughly satisfied that this is in a way a “Labour Welfare Measure”, with a view to safeguard the interest of the workers, that too to protect workers from the clutches of “middle-men”, this G.O. had been issued. Hence, the G.O. cannot be found fault in any way. Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed with costs.” 17. In the light of the elaborate reasons which had been recorded in W.P.No.13824/2009, since the same question is involved in the present writ petition also, the writ petition being devoid of merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 14th October, 2009 smr [1] AIR 1984 S.C., 802