l?j CAI^I^K- copyl d3;UCT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER: W.P. (CRINo. 5022 /2007 S.N. Gadia S/o Shree M. Gadia, aged 62 years, President- Janjagriti Kendra, Laidiagarh, Pithoura, District Mahasamund, R/o Lakhagarh, Pithoura, District Mahasamund [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1] State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Labour Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.] 2] Gulam Hassan Mir Bhatta Badgaon, Brick No. 71 D. Village & P.0. Bugaon, Tahsil- Chadora, District- Badgaon, Shri Nagar (JAMMU AND KASHMIR). 3] Collector, Badgaron, District Badgaon, Shri Nagar (JAMMU AND KASHMIR). 4] Secretary, Labour Department, Shri-Nagar (JAMMU AND KASHMIR) 5] Collector, Korba, District- Korba [C.G.] 6] Collector, Raigarh District- Raigarh [C.G.] ^^^^s^^^^^^^ ^ 7- 7] Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] 8] Secretary, Labour Department Ministry New Delhi WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 7; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.) No.5022 of 2007 A^ PETITIONER S.N. Gadia VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others f^~~: "i,- '!, Judgment for consideration Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma°^ °v^^' Sd;- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge •ft-^ Post for pronouncement of the judgment on the ^Z'da'y of June,2011 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .4; t< A § ~"*S s ,iwf// HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.) N0. 5022 OF 2007 PETITIONER : S.N.Gadia RESPONDENTS VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Coram : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Acinihotri & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. Present: Shri J.K. Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents No.1 and 5 to 7. Shri D.K. Gwalre, Advocate for the respondents No.3 &4. tt-. (Delivered on .-i:/...dayofJune, 2011) PerSATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to set at liberty/ release 75 labourers of Chhattisgarh State as stated in the letter from the illegal detention of - respondent No.2/Gulam Hassan Mir Bhatta Badgaon, Brick N0.71-D, village & post office Bugaon, Tahsil Chadora, District Badgaon, Shri Nagar, Jammu & Kashmir and to produce them before this hlon'ble Court. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, for proper adjudication of the dispute, are that the petitioner is a social worker and doing the social activist works since last four decades. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as Commissioner by the Supreme Court in WP (C) No.3922 of 1985 (Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State of T.N. r i^/ ^^ y •^- /•*": & Ore.) and other connected writ petition for investigation in the State of Madhya Pradesh relating to bonded labour. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that one Raj Divakar wrote a letter (Annexure - P/2) to the Chief Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh with regard to the difficulties faced by them while working as labourers in the brick kilns of the State of Jammu & Kashmir owned by the respondent No.2. When no response was received from the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner submitted representations before the Collectors of Korba, Raigarh & Janjgir-Champa vide Annexure - P/3, P/4 & P/5, respectively. The petitioner also submitted a representation before the Secretary, Department of Labour, State of Chhattigarh, to initiate necessary steps to get 75 bonded labourers released, but the same did not yield any result. 4. According to the petitioner, the bonded labourers are permanent residents of State of Chhattisgarh. They were facing a lot of difficulties and the harassment at the hand of the respondent No.2, in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The life & liberty of said labourers was in danger. Hence, this petition. 5. Shri Bajaj, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/ respondents No.1 and5 to 7, would submit that after receiving the letter dated 1-8-2007 (Annexure - R/1-2) from the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, wrote a letter dated 29-8-2007 (Annexure - R/1-3) to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jammu & Kashmir to ensure security of the labourers and rescue them immediately. Even the Chief Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh by letter dated 13-8-2007 (Annexure - R/1-4) requested the Chief Minister ofthe State of . /;; "^b ^ Jammu & Kashmir to cooperate with the officials of the State of Chhattisgarh and allow them to escort the released workers back home. From these facts, it appears that the State of Chhattisgarh is taking all necessary steps for rescue of the bonded labourers. Shri Bajaj would further submit that the Labour Commissioner, J & K vide Annexure - R/1-1 informed that the labourers/complainants alleged to have been bonded labourers in Brick Kiln No.71-D belonging to one Shri Ghulam Hassan Mir at Bogam Chadoora, District Budgam have already left the Brick Kiln coricerned and, as such, there is no question of any kind of bonded/forcible labour at the site of Brick Kiln. Hence, the allegations raised in this petition with regard to illegal detention of the persons of State of Chhattisgarh in the State of Jammu & Kashmir are baselessand the petition may be dismissed. Shri Gwalre, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 & 4, would submit that on receipt of communications from the State of Chhattisgarh, the State of Jammu & Kashmir enquired the matter. In the enquiry, the Tahsildar, Chadoora, District Badgaon found that 12 families ofthe Chhattisgarh State working as labourers in the brick kiln of Gulam Hassan and found the labourers were free to move to anywhere by their own freewill and there had not been any restriction to those labourers in returning to their villages. Enquiry report is Annexure - R/3-1. Even the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Badgaom held an enquiry through the Station House Officer whereupon it was found that the allegations raised are false, asthe labourers had been found working in the brick kiln voluntarily. /. ff y1 8. Shri Gwalre would further submit that out of the list of the persons submitted by the petitioner, who are said to had been taken to Punjab & Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir areas, statements of around 90 persons have been recorded by the State team, which had gone to Punjab & Haryana and Jammu & Kashmir areas. There they have stated that they are not in detention of anybody and they can move where they want. 9. In rejoinder, Shri Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the aggrieved persons may be provided the release certificate by the respondent No.1 and compensation may be granted to them. Shri Shastri placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Neeraja Chaudhary v. State ofM.P. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 11. From the order dated 11-4-2008 passed by this Court, it appears that Shri Pyarelal Diwakar and the petitioner namely; Shri S.N. Gadia were present and they were identified by Shri J.K. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner. On the said date, Shri Shastri submitted before the Court that "it is true that today labours are not in detention of respondent No.2 namely; Gulam Hassan' and sought time for final argument. 12. tn response to the affidavit dated 10-1-2008 filed by the petitioner, the State/respondents No.1 and 5 to 7 have filed response and in para 6 contended that some of the persons have even stated that they had reached to the brick kilns through Pyarelal Diwakar and said Diwakar had taken different amounts from the different persons and has not returned back 1AIR 1984 SC 1099 .M § 8 .*! ^?s'y the amounts nor he has made any contact with the labourers. From these facts, it appears that there is some dispute in respect of money between the labourers and Pyarelal Diwakar. Copies of statements of labouers are filed as Annexure - R/1-8. 13. Even by communication dated 13-8-2007 (Annexure - R/3-2) the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Budgam informed the Superintendent of Police, Korba, that the Station House Officer met the labourers and found the complaint absolutely false & far from truth. The labourers are safe, sound and are willinglyworking in the brick kiln. 14. Statement of the respondent No.2 was recorded in Urdu and the same was translated in Hindi. In the said statement the respondent No.2 stated that only to grab the advance amount, the false and concocted complaint has lodged against him. In fact, he has not committed any atrocities on the labourers. 15. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act, 1976"} was framed with an object to provide for the abolition of bonded labour system with a view to preventing the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker sectibns of the people and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 16. The 'bonded debt' has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act, 1976 as under: (d) 'bonded debf means an advance obtained, or presumed to have been obtained, by a bonded labourer under, or in pursuance of the bonded labour system; 17. The 'bonded labourer' has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act, 1976asunder: r b - .' 'T, r'--<:' (f) 'bonded labourei' means a labourer who incurs, or has, or is presumed to have, incurred, a bonded debt; 18. The 'bonded labour system' has been defined in Section 2 (g) of theAct, 1976asunder: (g) 'bonded labour system' means the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect than,- (i) in consideration of an advance obtained by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants (whether or not such advance is evidenced by any document) and in consideration of the interest, if any, due on such advance, or (ii) in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or (iii) in pursuance of an obligation devolving on him by succession, or (iv) for any economic consideration received by him or by any of his lineal ascendants - or descendants, or (v) by reason of his birth in any particular caste or community, he would— (1) render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person dependent on him, labour or service to the creditor, or for the benefit of the creditor, for a specified period or for an unspecified period, either ^ ^-<" without wages or for nominalwages, or (2) forfeit the freedom of employment or other means of livelihood for a specified period or for an unspecified period, or (3) forfeit the right to move freely throughout the territoryof India, or (4) forfeit the right to appropriate or sell at market value any of his property or product of his labour or the labour of a member of his family or any person dependent on him, and includes the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a surety for a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that in the event of the failure of the debtor to repay the debt, he would render the bonded labour on behalf of the debtor; Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any system of forced, or partly forced labour under which any workman being contract labour as defined in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), or an inter-State migrant workman as defined in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (30 of 1979), is required to render labour or service in circumstances of the nature mentioned in sub-clause (1) of this clause. or is subjected to all or any of the disabilities referred to in sub-clauses (2) to (4), is "bonded labour system" within the meaning of this clause. 8 19. On perusal of the various documents & affidavits filed by the parties as well as statements of the labourers, it isfound that the alleged 75 labourers were not forced to work as bonded labourer; or; they were not relieved without clearing bonded debt. 20. This is not a case of any customary or social obligation; or; an obligation devolving on him by succession; or; any economic consideration received by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants; or; by reason of his birth in any particular caste or communi.ty. 21. In the instant case, it appears that the alleged 75 persons had gone to Jammu & Kashmir at the instance of one Diwakar to work as labourers in brick kiln voluntarily. On enquiry they stated clearly that there was no debt or force on the part of the employer, which is evident from their statements (Annexure R/1-7 and R/1-8). Indisputably, they have been relieved long back and residing in their respective villages. 22. So far as second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no step was taken by the State of Chhattisgarh to rehabilitate the alleged 75 bonded labourers is concerned, nothing has been produced to establish that the alleged bonded labourers have been suffering on account of bondage or they are forced to work after their freedom from working in brick kiln. It is also not made out whether they need rehabilitation today or not. 23. The Supreme Court in Neeraja Chaudhary (supra) has observed that "freedom from bondage without effective rehabilitation after such freedom will indeed be of no consequence and in the absence of proper arrangement for g ^•JJ such rehabilitation being made, the entire purpose of the act will be frustrated and the vice of the bonded labour system which the legislature thought it fit to abolish in the larger interest not only of our country, but also of humanity as a whole will continue to perpetuate its evil existence." 24. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law and implementation of the same. However, in the case on hand nothing has been established that they have been bonded labourers and their rehabilitation, thereafter, has caused any loss or prejudice to them. 25. As an upshot, the writ petitionis shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 26. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sdf- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge Gowri <-;