Ali Niwaj vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1331 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH
117
                                                     CRWP-617-2023
                                                     Decided on: 20.01.2023

Ali Niwaj
                                                                  . . .Petitioner
                                         Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                              . . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT: Mr. Aditya Partap Singh, Advocate,
         for the petitioner.

            Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
                                 ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, has been filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus, praying for release of

detenues, as detailed in paragraph No. 2 of the petition, from the illegal

custody of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends

that petitioner as well as other detenues so mentioned in the petition had been

engaged by respondents No. 4 and 5, to work as labourers in the brick kiln,

which is owned and operated by said respondents. He contends that

petitioner and other detenues are forced to work by said respondents without

making any payment of dues and that detenues have been illegally detained.

However, petitioner was able to escape from the brick kiln.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

that he will be satisfied in case respondent No. 2 - District Magistrate,

Panipat, 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

1 of 3

'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:

"Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Fazilka to treat this petition as

2 of 3

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 of truth is found in the allegations, 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
20.01.2023
Riya

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




                                  3 of 3