Muhammad Murslim vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 777 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 777 P&H
Judgement Date : 16 January, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Muhammad Murslim vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 January, 2023

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                AT CHANDIGARH
                          123
                                                                              CRWP-455-2023
                                                                              Decided on : 16.01.2023

                          Muhammd Murslim
                                                                                       . . . Petitioner(s)
                                                             Versus
                          State of Haryana and others
                                                                                     . . . Respondent(s)

                          CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

                          PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Dangi, 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

respondents No.6 to 8.

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 respondents No. 6 to 8 to work as labourers for

manufacturing bricks at their brick kiln in the month of December, 2022 at

the rate of Rs.750/- per thousand bricks. He further contends that

respondents No.6 to 8 have not made the payment as agreed by them.

Therefore, an arrear amounting to Rs.70,000/- has accumulated against

respondents No.6 to 8, and detenues have been illegally detained by

respondents No.6 to 8.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

that he will be satisfied in case respondent No.3, who is the competent JAWALA RAM 2023.01.16 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

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: JAWALA RAM 2023.01.16 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement.

"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.3 - District Magistrate, Sonipat, 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.