ART 23 AND 24

M.P. JAIN NOTES:-

ART 23(1):- Proscribes three unsocial practices-

(a) Beggar
(b) Traffic in human beings
(c) Forced labour
Art 23 and 24 protects the individual not only against the State but also against private citizens.
1. The term beggar means compulsory work without any payment.
2. Withholding of pay of a govt. employee as a punishment has been held to be invalid as per of art 23.
3. “ Other similar forms of forced labour” – interpreted ejusdem generis. It has to be sth in the nature of
either traffic in human beings or beggar.
4. Exception (23(2)):- State can impose compulsory service for public purposes and in imposing such
service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class.
5. Even if renumeration is paid, labour supplied by a person would be hit by Art.23 if it is forced labour.
6. Even payment of wages less than the minimum wages- forced labour
7. The word “force” ought to be interpreted to include not only physical or legal force but also force
arising from the compulsion of economic circumstances.
8. The Kerela HC declared that the prisoners are entitled to payment of reasonable wages for the work
taken from them.
9. Bonded labour is unconstitutional under Art.23- forced labour.
10. The Court has linked Art 23 and 21 in the context of bonded labour and observed “ It is the FR of
every one in this country to live with human dignity, free from exploitation.”

Art 24:-
1. Total ban on child labour may not be socially feasible in the socio-economic environment of the
country. Accordingly, Art 24 puts only a partial restriction on employment of child labour.
2. It prohibits the employment of a child below the age of 14 years to works in any factory or mine or
in any other hazardous employment .

CASE:-

PEOPLES’ UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS UNION OF INDIA (1982)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ARTICLES 23 AND 24

Introduction

On 11th May, 1982, the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India &
Ors. Was decided by a bench comprising of Bhagwati, P.N. Islam, Baharul (J). The Petitioners have thrown
light upon the awful and dreadful condition of labourer’s who were forced to work in hostile conditions
through a letter written to Bhagwati J. who treated it as a PIL. Through this landmark judgement, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has not only widened the scope and ambit of Article 32 but also assure that the Court
belongs to everyone and if there is violation of beneficial legislations such as labor laws it will tantamount to
breach of Fundamental Rights and along-with that has given liberal interpretation to “forced labor” and
“beggar”.

Facts

1. It was a prestigious moment for India to host Asian Games 1982, and to complete its undertaking the
Government of India has to accomplish various construction projects such hotels, stadiums, etc. as
per international standards.
2. Various authorities were entrusted with project, relevant here are Delhi Development authority, New
Delhi Municipal Committee and Delhi Administration.
3. These authorities engaged Contractors as Principal Employers U/S 7 of The Contract Labor
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for execution of their projects.
4. These Contractors entered into contract with Jamadars to heir workmen for construction purposes.
5. Workmen from different parts of the country were hired especially from Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh
and Orissa.
6. Men at Rs. 9.25/- per day, women at Rs. 7/- per day and children even below the age of 14 year were
employed as workmen and above that Rs. 1/- was deducted from their wages by Jamadars as their
commission.
7. Workmen were not given equal wages and were not even entitled to their minimum wages and were
forced to work at feverish place and often beyond the working hours.
1. Children were dying of mal-nutrition and due to working in hazardous condition were frequently
becoming victims of serious accidents and some were dying.
2. The terrible working and living conditions of these workers were first brought to public notice by a
fact-finding team of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) which visited some of the
major sites in July and August 1981 and interviewed the workers as well as their employers.
3. PUDR address a letter to Bhagwati J. about the same who later treated it as PIL and the case was
filed on 16th Nov, 1981.

Issues framed

1. Whether petitioner organization is entitled to maintain the petition on behalf of labourer’s?

2. Whether this petition is maintainable against Union of India, Delhi Administration and Delhi
Development Authority when in actual the offending parties are private contractors?
3. Whether this petition is maintainable as there is no breach of fundamental rights of labourer’s but of
ordinary rights under labor laws?
4. Whether the Court can pass directions under Article 32 against private contractors?

Judgment

 While dealing with first issue, it was held that petitioner organization has locus standi to approach to
this Court on behalf of poor, ignorant, illiterate people because firstly, they were working in a bona-
fide faith and secondly the traditional rule of standing of judicial process which only allows those
people to approach to court to whom legal injury has been caused has now been jettisoned by this
Court through the Case of Judges’ Appointment and Transfer case[1] and revolutionized the concept
considering the prevailing socio-economic conditions.

 With respect to second issue, it was held that although the workmen were employed under
Contractors but it was the respondent authorities who entrusted the Asiad project to Contractors and
therefore, they cannot escape from their obligation of the observance of various labour laws. Also,
Respondent authorities being Principal Employers were bound by Sec 20 of Contract Labour
 (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and by Sec 17 & 18 of Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979
to provide amenities and allowances to workmen. And as far as, employment of children below 14 is
concerned then it is clearly provided under Article 24 of Indian Constitution which bars the same and
is enforceable against everybody.

 The court did not accept the plea of respondents that there is no violation of FR. Since, the petition
includes the violation of Article 24 due to employment of children below 14 and also violation of
provisions of following labour laws amounts to violation of following FR’s–

 Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 and Contract Labour Act, 1970 – Article 21 – after the
judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[2] and Francis Coralie Mullin V. Administrator and
ors.[3] Art 21 has been given new dimensions which includes right to live with basic human dignity
and here the two beneficial legislation were intended to ensure the labourer’s the basic human dignity
of which they remain deprived by respondents.

 Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Article – 23 – The nature and scope of Article 23 has been discussed,
and held that labour which is not rendered willingly but as a result of force or compulsion is ‘forced
labour’. Also, when a person provides services for remuneration which is less than the minimum
wage, said service will fall under Forced Labour.

 Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 – Article 14 – Not giving equal wages to both men and women for
their equal amounts to violation of right to equality.

Therefore, it was held that non-observance of labour laws by respondents have resulted into violation of
FR’s of labourer’s.

 Lastly while dealing with the fourth issue, it was held that where there is violation of Article 17, 23
or 24, Court can pass directions against private individuals since they are enforceable against private
individuals also.

Conclusion

In my opinion the judgement given by Hon’ble Supreme Court is credible and up to the point. Otherwise,
the Court will only belong to rich people who can afford to contest their case but through this judgement the
Court has made it clear that this Court belongs to every citizen of India and everyone has right to justice.
Through this judgement the concept of forced labour has also widened which helped many people of
unprivileged class to fight their case. It also shows that where there is a breach of beneficial legislation of
labour laws that amounts to strict violation of Fundamental Rights of Labour then there is a right to move to
Court under Article 32 to seek their grievances, and has made sure that Supreme Court is and will always
remain the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights.