UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LAWS

PANJAB UNIVERSITY REGIONAL CENTRE, LUDHIANA

LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS

PRESENTATION FILE

“Unorganized Workers Social Security Act, 2008 &

Case Law- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802”

Submitted To- Submitted by:

Dr. Renu Sharma Hardik
BA.LL.B (Hons.)9th Sem
Roll No.- 34

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset I bow my head before the ‘ALMIGHTY’ for the immense blessings showered on
me to carry but this project successfully. Also I must express my deepest gratitude to all people
along the way. No words can adequately express my sense of gratitude; still I express my
heartfelt thanks through words. I express my deep sense of gratitude to my research supervisor
‘Dr. Renu Sharma’ for her valuable guidance for the right blend of flexibility and support for
meticulous reading of the test, honest criticism and helpful feedback and for always believing
and encouraging me to set higher goals.

I express my deep sense of gratitude to my family and a special word of thanks to all my friends
for this guidance and support.

Hardik

BA.LL.B (Hons.) 9th Sem

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Introduction 4.
2. Objectives 4.
3. The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 5.
Section 1: Short Title, Extent, and Commencement
Section 2: Definitions
Section 3: Establishment of National and State Social Security
Boards
Section 4: Registration of Unorganised Workers
Section 5: Formulation of Social Security Schemes
Section 6: Financing of Social Security Schemes
Section 7: National Social Security Board’s Duties
Section 8: State Social Security Board’s Duties
Section 9: Reports and Returns
Section 10: Power to Make Rules
4. Comparitive Analysis 11.
5. Conclusion 13.
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802 14.
Introduction
Facts of the case
Issues Raised
Legal Provisions Involved
Contentions by Parties
Reasoning given by the court
Judgment
Case Commentary
7. References 23.

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 was a landmark legislation aimed at
providing social security benefits to workers in the unorganised sector, who were previously
excluded from formal social security mechanisms like those available to workers in the organised
sector. The Act recognizes the vulnerabilities of unorganised workers and mandates the
establishment of welfare schemes for their benefit. With the growth of the informal economy,
which employs a significant proportion of India’s labor force, the Act was seen as a crucial step
toward improving the well-being of unorganised workers and ensuring they have access to health
insurance, pensions, and other welfare benefits.

However, in 2020, the Government of India replaced several existing labor laws, including the
Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, with the Social Security Code, 2020. The new Code
aims to simplify and consolidate multiple laws related to social security into a more streamlined
framework. This assignment provides a detailed analysis of the Unorganised Workers’ Social
Security Act, 2008, including its key provisions, objectives, and its implications. It will also offer
a comparative analysis of the provisions of the Social Security Code, 2020 in relation to the 2008
Act.

OBJECTIVE OF THE UNORGANISED WORKERS' SOCIAL SECURITY

ACT, 2008

The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008 aimed to address the following objectives:

1. Provide Social Security to Unorganised Workers: The Act sought to create a

comprehensive framework for the protection of unorganised workers by ensuring they
have access to basic social security benefits, including health, maternity, pensions, and
insurance benefits.
2. Define Unorganised Workers: The Act defines unorganised workers as those who are
not part of the organised workforce and are employed in sectors such as agriculture,
construction, domestic work, and street vending, among others.
3. Promote Welfare Schemes: It mandates the creation of various welfare schemes for
unorganised workers and the establishment of mechanisms for their implementation and
management.

4|Page
 4. Facilitate Registration and Identification: The Act requires the establishment of a
national database of unorganised workers to facilitate the provision of social security
benefits. This database would help in identifying beneficiaries and ensuring that they
receive the entitled benefits.
5. Establish National and State Social Security Boards: The Act established the National
Social Security Board and State Social Security Boards, which are responsible for
recommending welfare schemes, approving schemes for various unorganised sectors, and
monitoring their implementation.

The Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008

 Section 1: Short Title, Extent, and Commencement

This section provides the short title, extent, and commencement of the Act. It is titled as "The
Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008," and applies to the whole of India, except
Jammu & Kashmir, and came into force on such date as notified by the Government

Section 1:

(1) This Act may be called the "Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008."

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, appoint.

Analysis: This introductory section establishes the framework for the Act and sets out its
jurisdiction and commencement. It clarifies the legal identity of the Act but does not address the
operational details, which are covered in subsequent sections

 Section 2: Definitions

Defines important terms such as unorganised worker, National Social Security Board (NSSB),
State Social Security Board (SSSB), social security, and others for the purpose of the Act.

5|Page
Section 2:

(1) “Unorganised worker” means a worker who is not employed in an organised sector and
includes workers in agriculture, construction, domestic work, street vending, and others.

(2) "Social security" means provisions for health insurance, maternity benefits, pensions, life
insurance, etc., for unorganised workers.

(3) “National Social Security Board” means the board constituted by the Central Government to
implement social security schemes.

(4) "State Social Security Board" means the state-level body set up to implement schemes for
unorganised workers at the state level.

Analysis: This section provides the foundational definitions needed to understand the scope and
applicability of the Act. By defining an unorganised worker, the Act makes clear that it targets
informal sector employees, who have historically been excluded from formal labor laws and
benefits.

 Section 3: Establishment of National and State Social Security Boards

Provides for the establishment of the National Social Security Board at the central level and State
Social Security Boards at the state level, which are responsible for formulating, recommending,
and monitoring social security schemes for unorganised workers.

Section 3:

(1) The Central Government shall, by notification, constitute a National Social Security Board to
recommend, supervise, and monitor schemes for unorganised workers.

(2) Each State Government shall establish a State Social Security Board to ensure the
implementation of the schemes within the state.

6|Page
Analysis: This section outlines the creation of the boards that are pivotal in the implementation
and monitoring of the welfare programs for unorganised workers. The dual structure of the
National and State boards ensures that social security is implemented at both central and local
levels, allowing for tailored schemes according to regional needs.

 Section 4: Registration of Unorganised Workers

This section mandates the registration of unorganised workers with the National or State Social
Security Boards to avail themselves of benefits under the social security schemes. It also requires
the creation of a National Database to track registered workers.

Section 4:

(1) The unorganised workers shall register themselves with the National Social Security Board or
the State Social Security Board to become eligible for social security benefits.

(2) The Boards shall maintain a National Database of unorganised workers to facilitate the
implementation of schemes and ensure accurate delivery of benefits.

Analysis: Registration is key for the administration of social security benefits under this Act. By
requiring workers to register, the government ensures that only eligible workers are able to
access welfare schemes. The National Database is designed to help streamline and track workers'
participation in these schemes.

 Section 5: Formulation of Social Security Schemes

This section empowers the National Social Security Board to recommend and approve various
social security schemes for unorganised workers, which can include health insurance, pensions,
life insurance, maternity benefits, and others.

Section 5:

(1) The National Social Security Board shall recommend social security schemes such as health
insurance, maternity benefits, pensions, and others for unorganised workers.

7|Page
(2) The State Social Security Board may recommend schemes at the state level to cater to the
specific needs of workers in the state.

Analysis: This provision establishes the framework for designing and implementing social
security schemes, with the central board providing oversight and the state boards customizing
schemes to meet local needs. The schemes can cover health, maternity, old age pensions, and
insurance benefits, ensuring comprehensive coverage for unorganised workers.

 Section 6: Financing of Social Security Schemes

This section outlines the funding mechanism for the social security schemes, specifying the
contributions made by workers, employers (where applicable), and the government.

Section 6:

(1) The social security schemes will be funded by contributions from unorganised workers, their
employers (if applicable), and the government.

(2) The government may provide subsidies to low-income workers to make the schemes more
affordable for them.

Analysis: The financing mechanism ensures that social security benefits are sustainable while
remaining affordable for unorganised workers. The government plays a key role in subsidizing
contributions, especially for workers with low incomes, which helps to make social security
schemes accessible to all.

 Section 7: National Social Security Board’s Duties

This section outlines the duties and responsibilities of the National Social Security Board, which
include recommending welfare schemes, overseeing their implementation, and ensuring that they
are effective in addressing the needs of unorganised workers.

Section 7

(1) The National Social Security Board is responsible for reviewing and recommending social
security schemes for unorganised workers.

8|Page
(2) The Board shall monitor the effectiveness of the schemes and ensure they are reaching the
intended beneficiaries.

(3) The Board shall make recommendations to the government on improvements and
adjustments to the schemes as needed.

Analysis: This section ensures that the National Social Security Board remains a key body for
not just formulating and recommending schemes, but also for monitoring and adjusting them to
ensure they meet the needs of the workers they are intended to serve.

 Section 8: State Social Security Board’s Duties

This section defines the duties of the State Social Security Board, which includes registering
unorganised workers, implementing welfare schemes at the state level, and ensuring the proper
disbursement of benefits.

Section 8:

(1) The State Social Security Board shall be responsible for the registration of unorganised
workers within the state and ensuring the proper implementation of schemes.

(2) The Board shall also ensure that the benefits of the schemes reach the intended workers and
address regional or sectoral needs.

Analysis: The State Social Security Board is the operational body that implements the schemes
on the ground. This decentralization allows for more region-specific or sector-specific
adaptations of the schemes, ensuring that local needs are met.

 Section 9: Reports and Returns

Requires the National and State Social Security Boards to provide annual reports on the status of
the social security schemes, including data on registration, disbursement of benefits, and any
challenges faced during the implementation.

9|Page
Section 9:

(1) The National Social Security Board shall submit an annual report to the Government
regarding the implementation of schemes for unorganised workers.

(2) The State Social Security Board shall submit similar reports to the state government.

Analysis: This section ensures transparency and accountability in the implementation of the Act.
The requirement for regular reports allows the government and the public to track progress and
identify challenges in the delivery of benefits.

 Section 10: Power to Make Rules

Provides the Central Government with the authority to make rules for the implementation of the
Act, including setting the procedure for registration, scheme implementation, and other
operational details.

Section 10:

(1) The Central Government shall have the power to make rules for the effective
implementation of this Act.

Analysis: This section grants the Central Government the authority to create the necessary
regulations and administrative procedures to implement the Act, providing flexibility to adapt to
changing circumstances or needs.

10 | P a g e
 COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS

The Social Security Code, 2020 is a consolidation of various existing labor laws, including the
Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008. It aims to simplify and modernize India’s social
security framework. While the provisions of the Social Security Code have replaced many of the
provisions of the 2008 Act, several key features of the Act are retained in the new Code, along
with some significant changes.
Aspect Unorganised Worker’s Social Security Code , 2020
Social Security Act, 2008
Coverage of Unorganised The Act specifically addressed The Social Security Code,
Workers workers in the unorganised 2020 expands coverage by
sector. It recognized workers including gig and platform
in sectors such as agriculture, workers in the definition of
construction, domestic work, unorganised workers,
and street vending, which are acknowledging the growing
excluded from formal social workforce in platforms like
security systems. food delivery and ride-sharing.
This was not addressed in the
2008 Act.
National and State Social Established National and State The Social Security Code
Security Boards Social Security Boards to continues to maintain the
oversee the welfare of structure of a National Social
unorganised workers. Security Board but introduces
the concept of State-level
welfare boards that may also
include additional bodies to
administer specific schemes.
The Code also emphasizes
digital platforms for
registration and benefit
disbursement, improving

11 | P a g e
 accessibility.
Registration of Workers Workers are required to The registration process is
voluntarily register to avail streamlined further under the
benefits, and a national e-Shram portal, a digital
database was to be created to platform launched by the
track the unorganised Ministry of Labour and
workforce. Employment in 2020, which
collects data on unorganised
workers and allows them to
register for social security
benefits.

Social Security Schemes Focused primarily on schemes The 2020 Code broadens the
related to health, life scope of schemes, introducing
insurance, pensions, and provisions for life and
maternity benefits, especially disability benefits, old age
for vulnerable workers. pensions, and health care,
while also including specific
provisions for gig and
platform workers, who were
previously excluded from
many formal social security
schemes.
Financing Mechanism Required the government to Required the government to
subsidize contributions to subsidize contributions to
social security schemes, with social security schemes, with
additional support from additional support from
workers and employers. workers and employers.

Enforcement and Focused primarily on the Introduces stricter

Compliance creation and implementation enforcement measures,

12 | P a g e
 of schemes at the state level, including penalties for non-
with little emphasis on compliance by employers, and
enforcement or penalties for sets up mechanisms to ensure
non-compliance. that benefits are disbursed
efficiently.

CONCLUSION

The Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008 was a significant step toward addressing the
social security needs of India's vast unorganised workforce. However, the Social Security Code,
2020 builds upon this framework by expanding coverage to include gig workers and platform
workers, introducing digital platforms for registration, and providing a more comprehensive and
unified social security system.

The Social Security Code, 2020 not only retains most of the provisions of the 2008 Act, such as
the creation of social security boards and formulation of schemes, but also modernizes and
improves the delivery mechanisms, thus ensuring that workers in the informal sector, including
emerging forms of labor like gig work, are provided with adequate social security benefits.

This transition from the 2008 Act to the 2020 Code marks an important evolution in India's labor
law system, with a stronger focus on inclusivity, digital access, and a more holistic approach to
worker welfare.

13 | P a g e
 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802

INTRODUCTION
The Bandhua Mukti Morcha (BMM) is a non-governmental organization established in 1981 to
fight against bonded labor in India. In 1983, the BMM filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in
the Supreme Court of India against the Union of India and the State Governments, challenging
the legality of bonded labor and seeking its abolition. The case, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union
of India, was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Justice PN Bhagwati, Justice Ranganath
Misra, and Justice D.A. Desai. The judgment was delivered on December 10, 1984.1

FACTS OF THE CASE

 The Petitioner, the Bandhua Mukti Morcha, a charitable group, inspected various stone
quarries in the Faridabad district near Delhi and discovered many workers from
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan were in a miserable
situation. On February 25, 1982, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Honourable Justice P.
N. Bhagwati.
 The letter provided the names of 11 Rajasthan employees, 30 Madhya Pradesh
employees, 14 Uttar Pradesh employees, and their declarations demonstrating their
vulnerability. Aside from jailed labour, the letter focused on fatal injuries, occupational
respiratory sickness, and stone dust, respectively.
 It also mentioned dirty drinking water, inadequate sanitation, low pay, and sexual
exploitation of women, all of which are enough to make workers’ lives miserable.
 The petitioner requested the issuance of a writ petition to ensure the proper
implementation of labour welfare laws such as the Mines Act of 1952, the Inter-State
Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979, the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, the Bonded Labour System
(Abolition) Act 1976, and the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, among others.
 The letter was regarded as a Writ Petition by the Supreme Court. A court issued a notice
appointing two attorneys, Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda, as commissioners to visit
and cooperate with the workers at the stone quarries named in the letter.

1
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India. Retrieved from https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/9643.pdf

14 | P a g e
  The commissioners' report was submitted on March 2, 1982, and said the following:
i. Many marble processing machines were in operation, resulting in a dusty
atmosphere that made it difficult to breathe.
ii. People over there did not have access to clean water and were forced to
drink dirty water from a nallah in most cases.
iii. They lived in jhuggies made of piled stones and straw; laborers could not
leave the stone quarries.
iv. They could not seek compensation for injuries sustained on the job.
 On March 5, 1982, the Court ordered that all respondents receive copies of Ashok
Srivastava and Ashok Panda's Report in written requests so that they might react to the
facts presented in this Report.
 The Court has assigned Dr. Patwardhan of the Indian Institute of Technology to
undertake a socio-legal study into the authenticity of state duties so that the State
Government and its personnel can take the required steps to rectify the issue.

ISSUES RAISED:
Following the submission of Dr. Patwardhan's extensive and well-documented report to the
court, the Apex Court outlined the following issues:

1. Whether the Writ Petition filed under Art. 32 of Indian Constitution is maintainable or
not?

2. Whether or not Fundamental Rights have been abrogated?

3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to appoint a commission?

4. Can the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1976 be invoked in
this case?

5. Is there any disagreement over executing various social welfare laws for workers?

15 | P a g e
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
 Constitutional Provisions
i. Article 21: (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) Ensures that no person shall be
deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law. The court interpreted this to include the right to live with
dignity.
ii. Article 23: (Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour)
Prohibits trafficking and forced labor, reinforcing the illegality of bonded labor.
iii. Article 14: (Right to Equality) Guarantees equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws, which supports the argument against discrimination faced
by bonded laborers.
iv. Article 39(a): (Right to Work, to Education, and to Public Assistance) Directs
the state to ensure that citizens have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.

 Statutory Provisions
i. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976: Abolished the bonded labor
system in India and made the practice illegal, mandating the rehabilitation of
bonded laborers.
ii. The Indian Contract Act, 1872: Relevant to the legality of contracts formed
under duress or coercion, emphasizing that agreements made under coercion
(such as those in bonded labor situations) are void.
iii. The Payment of Wages Act, 1936: Ensures that workers receive fair wages and
protects them from exploitation, relevant in contexts of labor rights.
iv. The Minimum Wages Act, 1948: Establishes minimum wages for workers,
which is crucial for protecting labor rights and ensuring fair compensation.
v. The Factories Act, 1948: Provides for the health, safety, and welfare of workers
in factories, pertinent in the context of working conditions for laborers.
vi. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:Addresses disputes between employers and
employees, relevant in ensuring fair treatment and dispute resolution for workers.

16 | P a g e
CONTENTIONS BY PARTIES

Petitioners (Bandhua Mukti Morcha)

 Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners contended that bonded laborers'

rights were being violated, particularly their rights to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution. They argued that these laborers were subjected to
inhumane conditions and were deprived of their freedom.

 Need for Judicial Intervention: The petitioners sought the court's intervention to ensure
the enforcement of laws prohibiting bonded labor. They argued that the government had
failed to implement the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, effectively.

 Socio-Economic Justice: They emphasized the need for social justice, highlighting that
many laborers were trapped in a cycle of poverty and exploitation, and called for
measures to secure their rights and improve their living conditions.

Respondent (Union of India)

 Government's Responsibility: The Union of India argued that it was taking steps to
eradicate bonded labor and that various schemes were in place for the rehabilitation of
bonded laborers. They maintained that the issue required comprehensive policies rather
than just judicial intervention.

 Implementation Challenges: The government contended that the effective

implementation of laws faced practical difficulties, including the lack of resources and
the vastness of the problem. They asserted that the matter required legislative and
administrative solutions rather than just judicial orders.

 Existing Legal Framework: The respondent pointed out that there were existing laws
aimed at protecting labor rights, and they argued that more time and effort were needed to
address the systemic issues underlying bonded labor.

17 | P a g e
REASONING GIVEN BY COURT:

The legal concerns were examined by the Bench, led by Justice Bhagwati, as follows:
 Issue 1: The Hon'ble Court utterly dismissed the respondent's locus standi argument.
Previously, the court held that only the aggrieved party might seek redress from the court.
However, in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India2, the Court declared that any member acting
in good faith might petition the Court under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution
on behalf of the people suffering from poverty and lack of awareness and resources.
Furthermore, the Court concluded that there is no constraint in the wording of Article 32
that renders the requirement of locus standi a sine qua non. The Court further underlined
that the terms "suitable proceeding" in Article 32 must be interpreted in this way: the
condition of appropriateness must be considered in light of the objective for which the
proceeding is to be taken, namely the enforcement of a fundamental right. As a result, the
petition was found to be maintainable since the petitioner was working for the public
good to protect the fundamental rights of the poor.

 Issue 2: In response to Defendant's claim that there was no infringement of fundamental

rights, the Supreme Court stated that the government is not anticipated to raise such
concerns at the outset of the current P.I.L. asserting that certain workers were in servitude
and under inhumane conditions. Instead, the Government must approve the Court's
investigation to determine whether there is any wage slavery or other forms of forced
labour. The P.I.L. is not an adversarial lawsuit by definition but rather a challenge and
opportunity for the government to protect society's most vulnerable and despicable
members.
The court cited the case of Frances Mullins. W.C. Khambra3 held that Article 21
included the right to life and human dignity without exploitation.

 Issue 3: According to the court, the respondent's claim on issue 3 concerning the
nomination of Commissioners is based on a false premise of the procedures under

2
S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
3
Frances Mullinv. W.C. Khambra, AIR 1980 SC 849

18 | P a g e
 Section 32 of the Constitution. The authority to provide any direction, order, or issue
writs that may be pertinent to the assertion of the fundamental right in question is
enshrined in Article 32 (2). The concurrent form of the phrase makes this clear. The
Supreme Court has the power to issue writs such as mandamus, habeas corpus,
prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, as well as writs similar to these high prerogative
writs, even if the conditions for issuing any of these high prerogative writs are not met.

 Issue 4: The Respondent claims that the laborers bear the burden of proof under the
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. To require bonded labourers to
demonstrate that they perform forced labour in exchange for an advance or other
economic reward. Only then would they be eligible for benefits under the Act, is to
expect them to do an extraordinarily extraordinary task difficult, if not impossible. In
response to this, the Supreme Court stated that anytime the subject of forced labour is
brought before the court, it will prima facie create a presumption that the laborers are
giving forced work for financial gain.

 Issue 5: In this scenario, the quarrying stone is deemed a ‘mine' within the sense of
Section 2 (j) of the Mining Act, 1952, because they are excavations where operations to
get stone quarrying are carried out. Even so, because the holes in these stone quarries
extend below super-jacent ground, they are not considered "open cast working." Apart
from that, respondents attempted to protect themselves by relying on Section 3(1) (b) of
the Act of 1952, which exempts quarries from the current legislation. The standards set
out in state 3(1) (b) are not met because the operation of these mines is underground and
not "open cases," and explosives are approved for use in mining.
 In terms of the Cross Migrant Workmen Act, 1959, the Court held that thekedars or
jamadars fall under Section 2(1) (b) of the Act as contractors and that the owners also
meet Section 2(1)'s criteria (g). However, suppose five or more workmen in an
organization fall within the definition of Cross Migrant Workmen as described in Section
2 sub-section (1) clause (e). In that case, five or more workmen in an organization fall
within the definition of Cross Migrant Workmen as described in Section 2 sub-section (1)

19 | P a g e
 clause (e), the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act will apply only to the establishments in
which they are engaged.
Even though the majority of workers employed in Haryana's stone quarries and stone
crushers come from Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra
Pradesh, according to Dr. Patwardhan's report, there are only a few workers from
Haryana, the Court ruled that an investigation into whether the state's employers
employed any inter-state stoneworkers should be conducted.
To satisfy the Constitutional requirement, the Haryana government was instructed to
enforce the Minimum Wages Act of 1948, the Workmen Compensation Act of 1923, the
Employees' State Insurance Act of 1948, the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952, and the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961.

JUDGEMENT :

 The Court addressed the importance of safeguarding children's entitlements or rights to

education, security, and health, as well as the advancement of India as a democratic
society, in its decision. While the Court acknowledged that a child's work could not be
promptly revoked due to financial constraints, it determined that practical efforts might
be made to protect and improve youth rights in India's poor and underprivileged
populations.
 On the side of its decision, the Court alluded to different basic rights and order standards
of the Indian Constitution, including, Article 21, Article 24, Article 39 (e) (disallows
constraining residents into employments unsuited for their age or quality), Article 39(f)
(depicts the State’s obligations to shield youngsters from abuse and to guarantee kids the
chances and offices to create soundly), and Article 45 (commands the State to give free
obligatory training to all children beneath 14 years).
 The Court also took note of India's responsibilities under the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on the Child's Rights to provide free primary
education to all children in the country and protect children from financial exploitation.
The measures requested in M.C. Mehta v. Province of Tamil Nadu and Ors 4, a previous
4
M.C. Mehta v. Province of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 756

20 | P a g e
 case, were mentioned by the Court and merged in the requests to Uttar Pradesh and
Bihar. The recommendations included advising states on how to design plans to logically
dispose of the labour of children under the age of 14; providing mandatory training to all
children employed in processing plants, mining, and other enterprises; ensuring that
children receive supplement-rich nutrition; and regulating the use of children under the
age of 14 in processing plants, mining, and other enterprises.

CASE COMMENTARY
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that
dealt with the issue of bonded labor in India. The case was filed by the Bandhua Mukti Morcha
(Bonded Labour Liberation Front), a non-government organization, on behalf of bonded laborers
in the state of Haryana, India. The petitioners argued that the bonded labor system violated
several fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, such as the right to life and
liberty (Article 21), equality before the law (Article 14), and the prohibition of forced labor
(Article 23)iv . The judgment of the Supreme Court of India in this case had far-reaching
implications and led to the abolition of bonded labor in India. The court declared the "Bonded
Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976" as constitutional and ordered the release and rehabilitation
of bonded laborers. The court held that bonded labor was violative of human dignity and the
fundamental right to life and liberty under the Indian Constitution. The court also issued a
number of directions to the Union and State Governments to ensure the effective implementation
of the Act and to prevent the re-emergence of bonded labor in India. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha
vs. Union of India case is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it brought the issue of bonded
labor to the forefront and led to the effective implementation of the "Bonded Labour System
(Abolition) Act, 1976". The case exposed the prevalent practice of bonded labor in India and
highlighted the lack of effective implementation of the law. Secondly, the case is a milestone in
the struggle for the protection of human rights in India. The judgment of the Supreme Court of
India in this case recognizes the importance of the right to life and liberty and the prohibition of
forced labor under the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the case is significant in the context of
public interest litigation (PIL) in India. The case was filed by a non-government organization on
behalf of bonded laborers, who were unable to access the justice system due to their
marginalized and vulnerable position. The Supreme Court of India, through this case,

21 | P a g e
emphasized the role of PIL in ensuring the protection of human rights and in providing access to
justice to marginalized and vulnerable groups

In conclusion, the Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India case is an important case in Indian
constitutional law, which brought the issue of bonded labor to the forefront and led to the
effective implementation of the "Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976". The case
highlights the role of public interest litigation in ensuring the protection of human rights and the
importance of the judiciary in safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian
Constitution. The case is a milestone in the struggle for the protection of human rights in India
and continues to serve as a reference in subsequent cases related to the protection of fundamental
rights.

The judgment also recognized the importance of international conventions and India's obligation
to comply with them. The judgment strengthened India's commitment to international
conventions and provided a basis for the development of international human rights law. The
judgment was significant in that it provided a roadmap for the eradication of bonded labor. The
court directed the Union of India and the State Governments to take necessary steps to prevent
the practice of bonded labor in the future, such as creating awareness campaigns, providing
education and training, and enforcing strict penalties for violations. The judgment played a
crucial role in the development of labor laws and human rights in India, and continues to serve as
a precedent for future cases related to bonded labor and fundamental rights.

REFERENCES

22 | P a g e
 BOOKS

1. Meenu Paul, Labour and Industrial Law, (Allahabad Law Agency, New Delhi, 9th
Edition, 2014).
2. S.N. Mishra, Labour and Industrial Laws, (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 29th
Edition, 2019).

3. O.P. Malhotra, Law of Industrial Disputes ,( Lexis Nexis,7th edi,2015)

WEBSITES

1. https://lawdocs.in/blog/labour-laws-in-unorganized-sector.
2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3001-protection-of-rights-of-
unorganized-workers.
3. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10263.pdf.
4. https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/visitor/detail_article.asp?ArticleID=8809.
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/595099/
6. https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-bandhua-mukti-morcha-v-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors/

23 | P a g e