PEOPLE'S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 18-09-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
. 
F 
G 
'456 
'PEOPLE'S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC 
RIGHTS AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
September 18, 1982 
[P.N. BHAGWATI AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
• 
Public Interest Litigation, scope and need for-Violation of various labour 4 
laws in relation to workmen employed in the construction work connected with the 
\T_ 
Asian Games like Constitution of India, 1950 Arts. 24, Minimum wages Act, 1948, 
Equal Remuneration Act. The employment of Children Acts, 1938 and 1970, Inter-
state Migrant workman (Regulation of Employment and conditions of Service) Act, 
1970 and contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970-Locus~standi-
• 
Maintainability of the writ and remedial relief that could be granted-Duties of 
Court regarding sentencing in cases of violation of Labour Laws-Constitution of · 
India Articles 14, 23, 24 and 32--Scope of Article 23 Meaning of''begar" Duty of 
State when violation of Arts. 11, 23 and 24 is complained. 
Petitioner No. 1,, is an organisation formed for the purpose of protecting 
democratic rights. It c'ommissioned three social scientists for the purpose of 
investigating. and inquiring into the conditions under which"the workmen engaged 
in the various Asiad Projects were working. Based on the report made by these 
three social scientists after personal investigati~n and study the 1st petitioner add-
ressed a letter to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhagwati complaining of viola#on of 
.... various labourlaws by the reSpondents' and/or their agents and seeking interfe--
rence by the Supreme Court to render social justice by means of appropriate 
directions to thC affected workmen. The' Supreme Court 'treated the letter as a 
writ petition on the judicial side and issued notice; to· the Union of India, Delhi 
Administration and the Delhi Development Authority. 
The allegations in the petition were : 
(i) The various authorities to whom the execution of the different 
projects was entrusted engaged contractors for the purpo~e of car-
rying out the construction work of the projects and they were 
registered as principal emploYers under section 7 of the Contract 
Labour (Regulation and~AboJition) Act; 1970. These contractors 
engaged workers through "Jamadars" who brought them from 
different parts of India particularly the States of Rajasthan, Uttar 
Pradesh and Orissa and paid to these Jamadars the minimum wage 
of Rs. 9.25 per day pe·r worker and not to the workmen direct. The 
Jamadars deducted Rupee one p~r day per worker as t~eir commis-
-
•• 
' 
.(ii) 
PEOPLE'~ UNION v. UNION OJ! INDIA: 
. 457 
sion with the result that there was a violation of the provisions Or 
... the Minimum Wages Act; 
. 
Th~.,provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 were violated as' 
the women w~>rkcrs wei:e being paid RS. 7/- per day, the balance of 
the amount of the wage was being misappropriated by . the 
Jamadars: 
(iii) There was violation of Article 24 of the Constitution and of the 
prov.isions of the Employment of Children Acts, 1938 and 1970 in 
asmuch 3.s children below 'the age of 14 years were employed by the 
contractors in the construction work of the various projects; 
(iv) There was viOlation of the· provisions of the Contract Labour 
(Regulations. and Abolition) Act, 1970 which resulted in depriva· 
tion and exploitation ~f the Workers ~nd denial of their right to 
proper living condition and medical and other facilities un'der the 
Act; and 
(v) The provisions of the Inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulation of 
Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, though brought 
into force as far back as 2nd Octobe~ 1980 in the Union Territory 
of Delhi were not implemented by t~e Contractors. 
AlloWing the petition, the Court., 
HBLD: 1:1. Public.interest litig'ation which is strategic arm of the legal 
aid movement and which is int~nded to bring justice within the reach of the poor 
masses: who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different 
- kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an 
adversary character where there is a dispute between two li1igating parties, one 
making claim or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing 
such claim or resisting such relief. 
Public interest litigation-is brought before 
the .court .not for the purpose of 
enfo~ing the right of one individual ' 
against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation. but it is inten-
ded to promote and indicate public intCrest which dem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.