Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Right to livelihood is, therefore an essential and integral part of right to life, constitutionally guaranteed under Article 21 and breach whereof cannot be tolerated under any circumstance.

6. In order to answer the issues noticed above it becomes necessary to examine the constitutional scheme and the rights of employees as well as prohibitions thereunder. Article 23 enacts a very important fundamental right, which is in the following terms:

"23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour (1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law (2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purpose, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them."

8. In the pronouncement of the apex court reported at 1982 (3) SCC 235, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the apex court had occasion to consider the rights of construction workers, who had been engaged by private contractors for executing development works initiated by the Delhi Development Authority. A writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on behalf of such poor, illiterate and ignorant classes for protection of their fundamental rights. It was complained that several statutory provisions including the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Equal Remuneration Act, 1976; Employment of Children Act, 1938, amongst others had been infringed by the private contractors and the state had failed to fulfil its obligation/responsibility in protection of the fundamental rights. During the course of the discussion in this landmark judgment, the court construed the expression "traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour" in Article 23, in the following terms:

"13. ......The word „begar‟ in this Article is not a word of common use in English language. It is a word of Indian origin which like many other words has found its way in the English vocabulary. It is very difficult to formulate a precise definition of the word „begar‟, but there can be no doubt that it is a form of forced labour under which a person is compelled to work without receiving any remuneration. Molesworth describes „begar‟ as "labour or service exacted by a government or person in power without giving remuneration for it". Wilson's glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms gives the following meaning of the word „begar‟: "a forced labourer, one pressed to carry burdens for individuals or the public. Under the old system, when pressed for public service, no pay was given. The Begari, though still liable to be pressed for public objects, now receives pay : Forced labour for private service is prohibited". „Begar‟ may therefore be loosely described as labour or service which a person is forced to give without receiving any remuneration for it. That was the meaning of the word „begar‟ accepted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in S. Vasudevan v. S.D. Mital. „Begar‟ is thus clearly a form of forced labour. Now it is not merely „begar‟ which is unconstitutionally prohibited by Article 23 but also all other similar forms of forced labour. This Article strikes at forced labour in whatever form it may manifest itself, because it is violative of human dignity and is contrary to basic human values".

9. The court rejected the arguments on behalf of the respondents that the interdict of Article 23 is limited only to those forms of forced labour where labour or service is exacted from a person without paying any remuneration at all, and if some remuneration is paid, though it be inadequate, it would not fall within the "other similar forms of forced labour". In this behalf, the court observed as follows:

"If this were the true interpretation, Article 23 would be reduced to a mere rope of sand, for it would then be the easiest thing in an exploitative society for a person belonging to a socially or economically dominant class to exact labour or service from a person belonging to the deprived and vulnerable section of the community by paying a negligible amount of remuneration and thus escape the rigour of Article 23. We do not think it would be right to place on the language of Article 23 an interpretation which would emasculate its beneficent provisions and defeat the very purpose of enacting them. We are clearly of the view that Article 23 is intended to abolish every form of forced labour. The words "other similar forms of forced labour are used in Article 23 not with a view to importing the particular characteristic of 'begar' that labour or service should be exacted without payment of any remuneration but with a view to bringing within the scope and ambit of that Article all other forms of forced labour and since 'begar' is one form of forced labour, the Constitution makers used the words "other similar forms of forced labour." If the requirement that labour or work should be exacted without any remuneration were imported in other forms of forced labour, they would straightaway come within the meaning of the word 'begar' and in that event there would be no need to have the additional words "other similar forms of forced labour." These words would be rendered futile and meaningless and it is a well recognised rule of interpretation that the court should avoid a construction which has the effect of rendering any words used by the legislature superfluous or redundent. The object of adding these words was clearly to expand the reach and content of Article 23 by including, in addition to 'begar', other forms of forced labour within the prohibition of that Article. Every form of forced labour 'begar' or otherwise, is within the inhibition of Article 23 and it makes no difference whether the person who is forced to give his labour or service to another is remunerated or not. Even if remuneration is paid, labour supplied by a person would be hit by this Article if it is forced labour, that is, labour supplied not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion".