Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)S. Vasudevan And Ors. vs S.D. Mital And Ors. on 18 January, 1961
carry burthens for individuals or the public. 'Begar' may, therefore, be loosely
described as labour or service which a person is forced to give without
receiving any remuneration for it. This definition was accepted by a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court, in case titled 'S. Vasudevan v. S.D. Mital';
'AIR 1962 Bom 53'. 'Begar', thus, clearly is a form of forced labour and all
forms of forced labour are unconstitutionally prohibited by Article 23 of the
Constitution of India. 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. In the case on hand, the respondents, as per their own
admission, are extracting services from the petitioners as Class-IV employees,
but are not paying them any salary/ wages/ remuneration for the same solely
on the ground that inquiry is pending against them as regards the genuineness
or otherwise of their appointment, thereby subjecting the petitioners to
'Begar', moreso, when there is no final inquiry report or formal order
declaring the petitioners as having been fraudulently appointed. In absence of
a final decision in the inquiry proceedings with reference to the case of the
petitioners, coupled with the factum of the petitioners discharging their duties
in the respondent Department continuously, the respondents cannot retain the
salary of the petitioners for inordinate time. The respondents, in law, were/
are obliged to take all possible steps so as to ensure that the inquiry
proceedings pending against the petitioners are taken to their logical
conclusion expeditiously and, accordingly, take a decision in the matter on the
basis of said findings of the inquiry committee. Instead of doing so, the
respondents have chosen to withhold the salary of the petitioners which cannot
be countenanced by law.
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1