Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
124
CRWP-11131-2022
Decided on : 23.11.2022
Mukesh Kumar
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Chander Shekhar Seghal, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas
Corpus directing the official respondents to get detenues mentioned in
paragraph No.4 of the petition, released from the illegal custody of
respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner as well as the other detenues so mentioned in the petition
had been engaged by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to work as labourers in the
brick kiln, which is owned and operated by the said respondents. He
contends that in the inception, respondent No. 4 made the payment as agreed
only for a week and thereafter, stopped the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-
and rather started taking work forcibly from the petitioner and his family
members. He further contends that petitioner was able to escape from the
brick kiln at night on 20.11.2022, however, his family members (detenues)
have been illegally detained.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that he will be satisfied in case respondent No.2, who is the competent
1 of 3
authority in terms of Section 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System
(Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1976') is
directed to take decision in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Murti v. State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 32 of 2013,
decided on 11.01.2013). The relevant extract of the said judgment reads
thus:
"It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant
in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in
para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at
the brick kiln of respondent Nos.4 & 5 are being kept as bonded
labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has
been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under
Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976.
We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not
mean that the allegations levelled by the appellant have been
accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District
Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding
enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the
provisions of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received.
Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred
that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have
been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and
set-aside/modify the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned
Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur,
to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act and
take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period
of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this
order alongwith a copy of the writ petition."
4. A further reference is also made to the order passed in the case
of Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CRWP No. 4666 of
2020, decided on 08.07.2020), which reads thus:
2 of 3
"Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a
direction to District Magistrate, Fazilka to treat this petition as
a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act,
1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within
a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy
of this order along with a copy of the writ petition."
5. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of with a
direction to respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Panipat, to look into the
grievance of the petitioner, as raised in the instant petition and in case any
substance in the allegations is found true, then to take appropriate action
under the Act of 1976, in accordance with law, within a period of one week
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with copy of
the criminal writ petition.
6. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of in terms as aforesaid.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
November 23, 2022
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
