Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.25 per day, that being the minimum wage fixed for workers employed on the construction of roads and in building operations but the case of the petitioners was that the workers were not paid this minimum wage and they were exploited by the contractors and the jamadars. The Union of India in the affidavit reply filed on its behalf by Madan Mohan; Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour asserted that the contractors did pay the minimum wage of Rs. 9.25 per day but frankly admitted that this minimum wage was paid to the jamadars through whom the workers were recruited and the jamadars deducted rupee one per day per worker as their commission and paid only Rs. 8.25 by way of wage to the workers. The result was that in fact the workers did not get the minimum wage of Rs. 9.25 per day. The petitioners also alleged in the writ petition that the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 were violated and women workers were being paid only Rs. 7/- per day and the balance of the amount of the wage was being misappropriated by the jamadars. It was also pointed out by the petitioners that there was violation of Article 24 of the Constitution and of the provisions of the Employment of Children Act, 1938 in as much as children below the age of 14 years were employed by the contractors in the construction work of the various projects. The petitioners also alleged violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and pointed out various breaches of those provisions by the contractors which resulted in deprivation and exploitation of the workers employed in the construction work of most of the projects. It was also the case of the petitioners that the workers were denied proper living conditions and medical and other facilities to which they were entitled under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The petitioners also complained that the contractors were not implementing the provisions of the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979 though that Act was brought in force in the Union Territory of Delhi as far back as 2nd October 1980. The report of the team of three social scientists on which the writ petition was based set out various instances of violations of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Equal Remuneration Act 1976, Article 24 of the Constitution, The Employment of Children Act 1970, and the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979.

These averments made on behalf of the petitioners were denied in the affidavits in reply filed on behalf of the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority. It was asserted by these authorities that so far as the Equal Remuneration Act 1976 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 were concerned, the provisions of these labour laws were being complied with by the contractors and whenever any violations of these labour laws were brought to the attention of the authorities as a result of periodical inspections carried out by them, action by way of prosecution was being taken against the contractors. The provisions of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 were, according to the Delhi Development Authority, being observed by the contractors and it was pointed out by the Delhi Development Authority in its affidavit in reply that the construction work of the projects entrusted to it was being carried out by the contractors under a written contract entered into with them and this written contract incorporated "Model Rules for the Protection of Health and Sanitary Arrangements for Workers employed by Delhi Development Authority or its Contractors" which provided for various facilities to be given to the workers employed in the construction work and also ensured to them payment of minimum wage The Delhi Administration was not so categorical as the Delhi Development Authority in regard to the observance of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act 1948 and in its affidavit in reply it conceded that the jamadars through whom the workers were recruited might be deducting rupee one per day per worker from the minimum wage payable to the workers. The Union of India was however more frank and it clearly admitted in its affidavit in reply that the jamadars were deducting rupee one per day per worker from the wage payable to the workers with the result that the workers did not get the minimum wage of Rs. 9.25 per day and there was violation of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

We must then proceed to consider the first limb of the second preliminary objection. It is true that the workmen whose cause has been championed by the petitioners are employees of the contractors but the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority which have entrusted the construction work of Asiad projects to the contractors cannot escape their obligation for observance of the various labour laws by the contractors. So far as the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 is concerned, it is clear that under section 20, if any amenity required to be provided under sections 16, 17, 18 or 19 for the benefit of the workmen employed in an establishment is not provided by the contractor, the obligation to provide such amenity rests on the principal employer and therefore if in the construction work of the Asiad projects, the contractors do not carry out the obligations imposed upon them by any of these sections, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority as principal employers would be liable and these obligations would be enforceable against them. The same position obtains in regard to the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979. In the case of this Act also, sections 17 and 18 make the principal employer liable to make payment of the wages to the migrant workmen employed by the contractor as also to pay the allowances provided under sections 14 and 15 and to provide the facilities specified in section 16 to such migrant workmen, in case the contractor fails to do so and these obligations are also therefore clearly enforceable against the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority as principal employers. So far as Article 24 of the Constitution is concerned, it embodies a fundamental right which is plainly and indubitably enforceable against every one and by reason of its compulsive mandate, no one can employ a child below the age of 14 years in a hazardous employment and since, as pointed out above, construction work is a hazardous employment, no child below the age of 14 years can be employed in construction work and there fore, not only are the contractors under a constitutional mandate not to employ any child below the age of 14 years, but it is also the duty of the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority to ensure that this constitutional obligation is obeyed by the contractors to whom they have entrusted the construction work of the various Asiad projects. The Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority cannot fold their hands in despair and become silent spectators of the breach of a constitutional prohibition being committed by their own contractors. So also with regard to the observance of the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act 1946, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority cannot avoid their obligation to ensure that these provisions are complied with by the contractors. It is the principle of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution which finds expression in the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act 1946 and if the Union of India, the Delhi Administration or the Delhi Development Authority at any time finds that the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act 1946 are not observed and the principles of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 is violated by its own contractors, it cannot ignore such violation and sit quiet by adopting a non-interfering attitude and taking shelter under the executive that the violation is being committed by the contractors and not by it. If any particular contractor is committing a breach of the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act 1946 and thus denying equality before the law to the workmen, the Union of India, the Delhi Administration or the Delhi Development Authority as the case may be, would be under an obligation to ensure that the contractor observes the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act 1946 and does not breach the equality clause enacted in Article 14. The Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority must also ensure that the minimum wage is paid to the workmen as provided under the Minimum Wages Act 1948. The contractors are, of course, liable to pay the minimum wage to the workmen employed by them but the Union of India the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority who have entrusted the construction work to the contractors would equally be responsible to ensure that the minimum wage is paid to the workmen by their contractors. This obligation which even otherwise rests on the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority is additionally re-inforced by section 17 of the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979 in so far as migrant workmen are concerned. It is obvious, therefore, that the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority cannot escape their obligation to the workmen to ensure observance of these labour laws by the contractors and if these labour laws are not complied with by the contractors, the workmen would clearly have a cause of action against the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority.

That takes us to a consideration of the other limb of the second preliminary objection. The argument of the respondents under this head of preliminary objection was that a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be maintained unless it complains of a breach of some fundamental right or the other and since what were alleged in the present writ petition were merely violations of the labour laws enacted for the benefit of the workmen and not breaches of any fundamental rights, the present writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. Now it is true that the present writ petition cannot be maintained by the petitioners unless they can show some violation of a fundamental right, for it is only for enforcement of a fundamental right that a writ petition can be maintained in this Court under Article 32. So far we agree with the contention of the respondents but there our agreement ends. We cannot accept the plea of the respondents that the present writ petition does not complain of any breach of a fundamental right. The complaint of violation of Article 24 based on the averment that children below the age of 14 years are employed in the construction work of the Asiad projects is clearly a complaint of violation of a fundamental right. So also when the petitioners allege non- observance of the provisions of the Equal Remuneration Act 1946, it is in effect and substance a complaint of breach of the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 and it can hardly be disputed that such a complaint can legitimately form the subject matter of a writ petition under Article 32. Then there is the complaint of non-observance of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 and the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act 1979 and this is also in our opinion a complaint relating to violation of Article 21. This Article has acquired a new dimension as a result of the decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1) and it has received its most expansive interpretation in Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors,(2) where it has been held by this Court that the right to life guaranteed under this Article is not confined merely to physical existence or to the use of any faculty or limb through which life is enjoyed or the soul communicates with outside world but it also includes within its scope and ambit the right to live with basic human dignity and the State cannot deprive any one of this precious and invaluable right because no procedure by which such deprivation may be effected can ever be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. Now the rights and benefits conferred on the workmen employed by a contractor under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 and the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 are clearly intended to ensure basic human dignity to the workmen and if the workmen are deprived of any of these rights and benefits to which they are entitled under the provisions of these two pieces of social welfare legislation, that would clearly be a violation of Article 21 by the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority which, as principal employers, are made statutorily responsible for securing such rights and benefits to the workmen. That leaves for consideration the complaint in regard to non- payment of minimum wage to the workmen under the Minimum Wages Act 1948. We are of the view that this complaint is also one relating to breach of a fundamental right and for reasons which we shall presently state, it is the fundamental right enshrined in Article 23 which is violated by non-payment of minimum wage to the workmen.