Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
140 CRWP-10253-2024
Decided on :22.10.2024
GURPREET SINGH
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. A.S.Gulati, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
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 No. 4.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the detenues
were contacted by respondent No.4 and offered work at the respondent's
brick kiln to do labour work. Now respondent No.4 has kept the detenues
under illegal confinement and they are not allowed to move anywhere.
Respondent No.4 is forcing them to work without payment of their salaries.
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
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
KAVITA NAIN 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, Hoshiarpur 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.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
22.10.2024
Kavita
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
