MUKESH ADVANI versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 02-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
126 
MUKESH ADVANJ 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
May 2, 1985 
(D.A. DESAI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.) 
Social Action Litigation-Exploitation of the workmen /ronz Tamil Nadu 
by the Mines contractors deprecated-Need for the State protection of the poor 
and needy labourers who are unable to negotiate on terms of equality, reiterated-
Constitution of India, 1950. Articles 38, 41, 42, 43, Bonded Labour System 
(Abolition) Act, 1974-Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. 
Pursuant to an investigative report in the "Indian Express" dated 
September 14, 1982, one of the advocates practising in the Supreme Court 
addressed a letter to one of the Judges of the Supreme Court depicting the 
horrid plight of bonded labour from Tamil Nadu working in the stone quarries 
at Raisen in Madhya Pradesh. It was alleged : (a) Everyone recruited were 
paid a reimbursible advance of Rs. 1,000/- but the method of accounting is so 
manipulated that the debt instead of getting wiped out, increased in geometrical 
proportion and no workmen can have the en1ployment until the entire debt 
repaid which is boyond the reach of the workmen; (b) The working conditions 
were bad. There was no weekly holiday. Sanitary conditions were in deplo-
rable state. The workmen were not paid any wages during rainy seasons, 
since the mines were shut off; (c) Not a single legislation enacted for the 
welfare of Jabour is implemented or respected and (d) Due to the inaction of 
the Labour Department of the Centre and the Stale like absence of a notifica-
tion specifying minimum wages for the labour force employed in the mines, 
resulting in paultry and meagre payment there is naked and unabashed 
exploitation of workmen. The report called for by the Supreme Court from 
the District Judge Bhopal confirmed the said allegations and further revealed 
that (a) on a complaint preferred 48 labourers were released by the Labour 
Department of Madh)a Pradesh; (b) a complaint has been lodged with the 
police under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976; (c) two or 
three cases against the Contractors were instituted in fact and the said cases 
were pending; (dJ the piece-rate method of paying wages for digging a standard 
'Khanti' has resulted sometime to no payment at all for both the male and 
female labour employed; (e) a team of police force arrived from Tamil Nadu 
and liberated the workmen and repatriated them to Tamil Nadu and (f) the 
newspaper publicity had a very salutary and desired effect in as much as 
various contractors have given up efforts to recover the advances which was a 
good achievement. 
The State of Madhya Pradesh admitted the findings of the District 
Judge, Bhopal and pointed out that in respect of flagstone mines, the 
appropriate Government is the Ct"ntr~ Government under the pa~mcnt of 
-
M. ADVANI V. M.P. STATE 
127 
Bonus Act, 1965 and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Tamil Nadu 
Government have clarified as to how tre labourers were duped and taken to 
. Madhya Pradesh and confirmed the release of the labourers by their State 
Police. 
The Court in the circumstances directed the Union of India as appro-
priate Government to issue a preliminary notification under section S of the 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 setting out its proposal for information of persons 
likely to be affected thereby and specifying a date not Jess than two months 
from th-e date of the Notification on which proposals will be taken into 
consideration. The Union of India accordingly issued necessary notification 
dated March 24, 1982 and October 31, 1983 setting out the minimum piece rate 
of wage-s for various occupations in flagstone mines. 
Disposing of the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. Undoubtedly, mines have to work in larger public and 
national interest. Therefore, in the very nature of things, there will be contra-
ctors and the workmen. Contractor as is his wont, to augment his profit 
which motivates him to take contract and who is not shown to be altruistic, 
is bound to exploit the workmen. The notorious method of exploitation is, 
pay as much less as possible despite all pretentions of Minimum Wages and 
Payment of Wages Act, take work for longer hours, prohibited by beneficicnt 
statutes like the Mines Act, the Factories Act and like !ltatutcs. Both these 
when jointly practised enlarges the profit. The law is that no employer can pay 
less than the minimum wages. But this remains a paper promise unless an 
effective
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.