Akash vs State Of Punjab And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3321 P&H

                                                                                2023:PHHC:047913

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                         CRWP-3346-2023
                                                                         Decided on : 08.04.2023

                      Akash
                                                                                   . . . Petitioner(s)
                                                        Versus
                      State of Punjab and others
                                                                                . . . Respondent(s)

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

                      PRESENT: Mr.Amit Kumar Walia, Advocate
                               for the petitioner(s).
                                                      ****

                      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.5 of the petition, released from the illegal custody of

respondents No. 5, 6 & 7.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends

that the respondent No.5 contacted the petitioner and other detenues for

moulding kacha bricks at their Brick Kiln and they reached the premises of

respondent No.5 i.e. Brick Kiln M/s Jindal Brick Kiln, situated at Village

Rampur, District Patiala immediately for moulding kacha bricks and started

working after agreeing at the rate of Rs.750/- per thousand Kacha Bricks

along with other terms and conditions for providing suitable accommodation,

medical aid, etc. Since then, they have not been paid any wages, weekly

leave and neither allowed to leave the brick kiln to work somewhere else.

Further, around Rs.6,00,000/- are due against the brick kiln owner. Counsel

further submits that somehow petitioner managed to escape the said premises KAVITA NAIN 2023.04.10 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment 2023:PHHC:047913

and then approached the local police station but police refused to take any

action.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

that he will be satisfied in case respondent No.2, who is the competent

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 KAVITA NAIN 2023.04.10 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment 2023:PHHC:047913

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:

"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 the District Magistrate, Patiala, Punjab, 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 April 08, 2023 k.nain

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

KAVITA NAIN 2023.04.10 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment