Crl. W. P. No. 1692 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1692 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 29, 2011 Golu .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate for respondents no.4 and 5. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Golu has filed the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition have been illegally detained as bonded labourers at AGG Brick Kiln, of which respondents no.4 and 5 are owner and Jamandar (labour contractor) respectively. Vide order dated 01.09.2011, respondent no.2 – District Crl. W. P. No. 1692 of 2011 2 Magistrate, Tarn Taran was directed to submit report in accordance with provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (in short – the Act). Accordingly, report by way of affidavit of respondent no.2 was furnished on the preceding date of hearing. It was stated in the affidavit of respondent no.2 that he directed Tehsildar, Tarn Taran to visit the premises of brick kiln of respondents no.4 and 5 and to submit report. Tehsildar, Tarn Taran submitted report dated 13.09.2011 that no bonded labourer was found in the premises of respondents no.4 and 5. Tehsildar also recorded statements of respondent no.4 (Annexure R-2) and respondent no.5 (Annexure R-3) and also of Gurbachan Singh – Munshi/Clerk at the brick kiln (Annexure R-4), besides statement of some labourers (Annexure R-5) working at the brick kiln. They all have stated that the petitioner and alleged detenues never worked at the brick kiln of respondents no.4 and 5. However, respondent no.4 stated that respondent no.5 had brought the petitioner and his companions to the Munshi, from whom some advance amount was taken by the petitioner and his companions for doing work at the brick kiln after Monsoon season, for which agreement was made on 25.08.2011, but till these statements were recorded on 12.09.2011, neither petitioner nor the alleged detenues had started work at the brick kiln and they never worked at the said brick kiln nor they were made bonded labourers. Rejoinder to the report of respondent no.2, filed today in Court Crl. W. P. No. 1692 of 2011 3 by learned counsel for the petitioner, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. It has been alleged in the rejoinder that the petitioner and his companion were allowed to leave the brick kiln on 12.09.2011, on intervention of Tehsildar, Tarn Taran, as per his verbal order. It is also alleged that respondents no.4 and 5 have committed offence under Section 17 of the Act, for which action is required to be taken. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the stand taken in the writ petition and rejoinder, whereas counsel for the respondents reiterated the version stated in the report of respondent no.2. Counsel for the petitioner also referred to definition of `agreement' given in Section 2 (b) of the Act and to Section 17 of the Act providing punishment for making advance of any bonded debt. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Provisions of the Act are meant to abolish the system of bonded labour. `Bonded debt', as defined in the Act, means advance obtained or presumed to have been obtained by a bonded labourer under or in pursuance of the bonded labour system. `Bonded labour system' has been defined to mean system of forced or partly forced labour under which a debtor enters or is presumed to have entered into agreement with the creditor. In the instant case, the question of bonded labour system or the petitioner and Crl. W. P. No. 1692 of 2011 4 alleged detenues being bonded labourers does not arise. As per inquiry report, the petitioner and his companions had taken advance and they were to be called to work at the brick kiln after monsoon season. However, they were not to be engaged as bonded labourers. They were not to render forced or partly forced labour or bonded labour. On the other hand, they were to render labour against payment of wages. From the report of respondent no.2 – District Magistrate, coupled with statements of respondents no.4 and 5 and other persons, it is prima facie manifest that the petitioner and the alleged detenues did not work at the brick kiln of respondents no.4 and 5 nor the alleged detenues were detained there nor they were forced to work there as bonded labourers. In fact, Habeas Corpus writ jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked in large number of such cases, apparently in some cases, after taking advance amount from the brick kiln owners and to digest or retain the same without doing work to earn wages for the same. In the instant case, the petitioner and the alleged detenues did not work at the brick kiln of respondents no.4 and 5 at all, much less as bonded labourers and nobody was detained, but the petitioner filed this writ petition alleging that persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ petition have been detained illegally at the brick kiln. However, they were not found at the brick kiln when Tehsildar visited the spot. The petitioner has thus abused the process of this Court by filing this writ petition. Crl. W. P. No. 1692 of 2011 5 In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court within one month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. September 29, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE