Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner also set out the various provisions of the Constitution and the statutes which were not being implemented or observed in regard to the labourers working in these stone quarries. The petitioner in the end prayed that a writ be issued for proper implementation of these provisions of the Constitution and statutes with a view to ending the misery, suffering and helplessness of "these victims of most inhuman exploitation".

The letter dated 25th February 1982 addressed by the petitioner was treated as a writ petition and by an order dated 26th February 1982 this Court issued notice on the writ petition and appointed two advocates, namely, M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda as commissioners to visit the stone quarries of Shri S.L. Sharma in Godhokhor (Anangpur) and Lakkarpur in Faridabad district and to interview each of the persons whose names were mentioned in the letter of the petitioner as also a cross section of the other workers with a view to finding out whether they are willingly working in these stone quarries and also to inquire about the conditions in which they are working. M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda were directed to visit these stone, quarries on 27th and 28th February 1982 and to make a report to this Court on or before 2nd March 1982. Pursuant to this order made by us, M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda visited the stone quarries of S.L. Sharma in Godhokhor and Lakkarpur and carried out the assignment entrusted to them and submitted a report to this Court on 2nd March 1982. The Report pointed out inter alia that in the stone quarries of S.L. Sharma at Godhakhpur, "many stone crushing machines were operating with the result that the whole atmosphere was full of dust and it was difficult even to breathe". The report then referred to the statements of various workers interviewed by M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda and according to the statements given by some of them, namely, Lalu Ram, Dalla Ram, Thakur Lal, Budh Ram, Harda, Mahadev, Smt. Shibban, Hardev, Anam, Punnu, Ghanshyam, Randhir and Mute, they were not allowed to leave the stone quarries and were providing forced labour and they did not have even pure water to drink but were compelled in most cases to drink dirty water from a nallah and were living in Jhuggies with stones piled one upon the other as walls and straw covering at the top, which did not afford any protection against sun and rain and which were so low that a person could hardly stand inside them. The statements of these workers showed that a few of them were suffering from tuberculosis and even when injuries were caused due to accidents arising in the course of employment, no compensation was being paid to them and there were no facilities for medical treatment or schooling for children. The Report proceeded to state that M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda then visited mine no. 8 in Godhokhor stone quarries and here they found that the condition of the jhuggies was much worse in such as the jhuggies were made only of straw and most of the people living in jhuggies had no clothes to wear and were shivering from cold and even the small children were moving about without any proper clothing. M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda found that none of the inmates of the jhuggies had any blanket or woolen clothes and they did not even have any mat on which they could sleep. The statements of Phool Chand, Babu Lal, Bhoolu, Karaya, Ram Bahadur and Sallu also showed that all these workers were bonded labourers who were not allowed to leave the stone quarries and one of them, namely Sallu was seriously injured on his left leg only a day before the visit of M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda but be did not hope to get any compensation "because here no one gets any compensation for any injury". Most of the workers interviewed by M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda stated that they got very little by way of wages from the mine lessees or owners of stone crushers since they had to purchase explosives with their own moneys and they had to incur other expenses which, according to Dr. Patwardhan's report to which we shall refer hereafter, included 50 per cent of the expenses of drilling holes. M/s. Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda also pointed out in the Report that the following persons working in the Godhokhor stone quarries claimed that they were bonded labourers:

(ii) where it is an open cast working-
(a) the depth of the excavation measured from its highest to its lowest point nowhere exceeds six metres;
(b) the number of persons employed on any one day does not exceed fifty; and
(c) explosives are not used in connection with the excavation."

Since the workings in these stone quarries extend below superjacent ground and they are not `open cast workings' and moreover explosives are admittedly used in connection with the excavation, the conditions set out in the proviso are not fulfilled and hence the exclusion of the provisions of the Mines Act 1952 (other than the excepted sections) is not attracted and all the provisions of the Mines Act 1952 apply to these stone quarries. It may also be noted that the definition of `mine' in section 2(j) includes in Clause (x) any premises or part thereof in or adjacent and belonging to a mine on which any process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of minerals...........is being carried on." Now obviously stone crushing is a process ancillary to the getting, dressing or preparation for sale of stone quarried from the stone quarries and therefore if the stone crushing activity is carried on in premises in or adjacent to a stone quarry and it belongs to the same owner as the stone quarry, it would be subject to the discipline of the provisions of the Mines Act 1952 and all workmen employed in connection with such stone crushers would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of that Act. It will, thus, be seen that all the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 are applicable to the workmen employed in the stone quarries as also to the workmen employed in connection with stone crushers, where the stone crusher is situate in or adjoining to a stone quarry and belongs to the same owner as the stone quarry. Now the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 which are material are those set out in Chapters V, VI and VII, Chapter V dealing with provisions as to health and safety, Chapter VI, with hours and limitation of employment and Chapter VII, with leave with wages. The provisions contained in these three Chapters confer certain rights and benefits on the workmen employed in the stone quarries and stone crushers and these rights and benefits are intended to secure to the workmen just and humane conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life with basic human dignity. We shall have occasion to consider some of these rights and benefits when we deal with the specific complaints made on behalf of the petitioner, but we may point out at this stage that the most important rights and benefits conferred on the workmen are those relating to their health and safety which include provisions as to drinking water, conservancy and injuries arising out of accidents, in regard to which detailed requirements are laid down in Chapters V, VI and IX of the Mines Rules; 1955. We may also point out that the obligation of complying with these provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Mines Rules, 1955 rests on the owner, agent and manager of every stone quarry and stone crusher, because section 18 declares that the owner, agent and manager of every mine shall be responsible that all operations carried on in connection therewith are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the regulations, rules and by-laws and of any orders made under the Act. The `owner' is defined in section 2(1) of the Mines Act, 1952 to mean "any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine or any part thereof.........but does not include a person who merely receives a royalty, rent or fine from the mine or is merely the proprietor of the mine, subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working thereof." Since the stone quarries in the present case are not being exploited by the State of Haryana though it is the owner of the stone quarries, but are being given out on lease by auction, the mine-lessees who are not only lessees but also occupiers of the stone quarries are the owners of the stone quarries within the meaning of that expression as used in section 2(1) and so also are the owners of stone crushers in relation to their establishment. The mine-lessees and owners of stone crushers are, therefore liable under section 18 of the Mines Act, 1952 to carry out their operations in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Mines Rules, 1955 and other Rules and Regulations made under that Act and to ensure that the rights and benefits conferred by these provisions are actually and concretely made available to the workmen. The Central Government is entrusted under the Mines Act 1952 with the responsibility of securing compliance with the provisions of that Act and of the Mines Rules 1955 and other Rules and Regulations made under that Act and it is the primary obligation of the Central Government to ensure that these provisions are complied with by the mine-lessees and stone crusher owners. The State of Haryana is also, for reasons which we have already discussed, under an obligation to take all necessary steps for the purpose of securing compliance with these provisions by the mine-lessees and owners of stone crushers. The State of Haryana has in fact amended the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1964 in their application to the State of Haryana by issuing the Punjab Minor Mineral Concession (Haryana First Amendment) Rules 1982 on 6th December 1982 and substituted a new clause 16 in Form F, a new clause 13 in Form L and a new clause 10 in Form N providing that the lessee/lessees or the contractor/contractors, as the case may be, "shall abide by the provisions of Mines Act, 1952 Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder and also the provisions of other labour laws both Central and State as are applicable to the workmen engaged in the mines, and quarries relating to the provisions of drinking water, rest shelters, dwelling houses, latrnesi and first aid and medical facilities in particular and other safety and welfare provisions in general, to the satisfaction of the competent authorities under the aforesaid Acts, rules and regulations and also to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned. In the case of non-compliance of any of the provisions of the enactments as aforesaid, the State Government or any officer authorised by it in this behalf may terminate the contract by giving one month's notice with forfeiture of security deposited or in the alternative the State Labour Department may remedy the breach/breaches by providing the welfare and safety measures as provided in the aforesaid enactments at the expense and cost of the contractor/contractors. The amount thus spent shall be recovered from the contractor/contractors by the Industries Department and reimbursed to Labour Department."

But the question arises whether the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act applies to the workmen employed in the stone quarries and the stone crushers. Now it was not disputed on behalf of the State of Haryana and indeed it was clear from the Report of Dr. Patwardhan that most of the workmen employed in the stone quarries and stone crushers come from Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh and there are only a few workmen from Haryana. It is only if 5 or more out of these workmen coming from States other than Haryana are inter-State migrant workmen within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2 sub-section (1) clause (e) of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act that the establishment in which they are employed would be covered by the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act. It would therefore have to be determined in case of each stone quarry and each stone crusher whether there are 5 or more inter-State Migrant workmen employed in the establishment and if there are, the provisions of the inter- State Migrant Workmen Act and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Rules would become applicable to such establishment. The Union of India in a submission filed on its behalf by Miss Subhasini has taken up the stand that the workmen employed in the one quarries and stone crushers "are coming to join the service in the stone quarries of their own volition and they are not recruited by any agent for being migrated from any State" and "as such they do not come under the definition of the term" inter-State migrant workman. We would have ordinarily been inclined to accept this statement made on behalf of the Union of India, but we find that, according to the Report of Dr. Patwardhan, the modus operandi that is followed for the purpose of recruitment of workmen is "that the stone crusher owners or the lessees holders ask the thekedar or jamadar of the mine to fetch people from various States to work in the mines" and some times "the jamadar or thekedar communicates the need for workers to old hands at the quarries so that they could bring in people on their return from their villages or their respective States". Now if what has been reported by Dr. Patwardhan is true, there can be no doubt that the workmen employed in the stone quarries and stone crushers would be inter-State migrant workmen. The thekedar or jamadar who is engaged by the mine lessees or the stone-crusher owners to recruit workmen or employ them on behalf of the mine lessees or stone crusher owners would clearly be a 'contractor' within the meaning of that term as defined in Section 2 sub-section (1) clause (b) and the workmen recruited by or through him from other States for employment in the stone quarries and stone crushers in the State of Haryana would undoubtedly be inter- State migrant workmen. Even when the thekedar or jamadar recruits or employs workmen for the stone quarries and stone crushers by sending word through the "old hands", the workmen so recruited or employed would be inter-State migrant workmen, because the "old hands" would be really acting as agents of the thekedar or jamadar for the purpose of recruiting or employing workmen. The Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act being a piece of social welfare legislation intended to effectuate the Directive Principles of State Policy and ensure decent living and working conditions for the workmen when they come from other States and are in a totally strange environment where by reason of their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, they would be totally unorganised and helpless and would become easy victims of exploitation, it must be given a broad and expansive interpretation so as to prevent the mischief and advance they remedy and therefore, even when the workmen are recruited or employed by the jamadar or thekedar by operating through the "old hands", they must be regarded as inter-State migrant workmen entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Rules. The Report of Dr. Patwardhan also points out one other aspect of the matter:

We are not at all satisfied that the stand taken on behalf of the State of Haryana that there is no bonded labour at all in the stone quarries and stone crushers is correct. The Report of M/s Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda shows that, according to the statements given by some of the workers, they were not allowed to leave the stone quarries and were providing forced labour and this Report also stated that several persons working in the Ghodhokor and Lakarpur stone quarries were forcibly kept by the contractors and they were not allowed to move out of their places and were bonded labourers. The petitioner also filed the affidavits of a large number of workers on 24th August 1982, each of them stating that he is under heavy debt of the thekedar who does not allow him to leave the premises without settling the account. We cannot ignore this material which has been placed before us and unquestioningly accept the statement made on behalf of the State of Haryana that there is no bonded labour in the stone quarries and stone crushers. But at the same time, we do not think that it would be right for us on the basis of this material to come to a definite finding that these workers whose names are given in the Report of M/s Ashok Srivastava and Ashok Panda or who have filed affidavits are providing forced labour or are bonded labourers. It is necessary to direct a further inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether any of the labourers working in the stone quarries and stone crushers in Faridabad District are bonded labourers in the light of the law laid down by us in this judgment. We would therefore direct Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, who has considerable experience of the work of identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, to visit the stone quarries and stone crushers in Faridabad District and ascertain by enquiring from the labourers in each stone quarry or stone crusher whether any of them are being forced to provide labour and are bonded laboureres. While making this inquiry, Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra will take care to see that when he interviews the labourers either individually or collectively, neither the mine-lessees or owners of stone crushers nor the thekedar of jamadar nor any one else is present. Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra will prepare in respect of each stone quarry or stone crusher a statement showing the names and particulars of those who, according to the inquiry made by him, are bonded labourers and he will also ascertain from them whether they want to continue to work in the stone quarry or stone crusher or they want to go back to their homes and if they want to go back, the District Magistrate of Faridabad will on receipt of the statement from Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra, make necessary arrangements for releasing them and provide for their transportation back to their hromes and for this purpose the State Government shall make the requisite funds available to the District Magistrate. Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra will also enquire from the mine-lessees and owners of stone crushers as also from the thekedar or jamadar whether there are any advances made by them to the labourers working in the stone quarry or stone crusher and if so, whether there is any documentary evidence in support of the same and he will also ascertain what, according to the mine-lessees and owners of stone crushers or the jamadar or thekedar, are the amounts of loans still remaining outstanding against such labourers. Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra will submit his report to this Court on or before 28th February 1984. We may make it clear that the object and purpose of this inquiry by Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra is not to fasten any liability on the minelessees and owners of stone crushers and the jamadar or thekedar on the basis of the Report of Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra but to secure the release and repatriation of those labourers who claim to be bonded labourers and who want to leave the employment and go some where else. We may point out that the problem of bonded labourers is a difficult problem because unless, on being freed from bondage, they are provided proper and adequate rehabilitation, it would not help to merely secure their release. Rather in such cases it would be more in their interest to ensure proper working conditions with full enjoyment of the benefits of social welfare and labour laws so that they can live a healthy decent life. But of course this would only be the next best substitute for release and rehabilitation which must receive the highest priority.