Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.38 seconds)Article 24 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 4 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Article 17 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Vasudevan And Ors. vs S.D. Mital And Ors. on 18 January, 1961
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 [AIR 1962 Bom 53 : 63 Bom LR 774 : (1961-62) 21 FJR 441] . "Begar" is thus clearly a form of forced labour. Now it is not merely "begar" which is unconstitutionally (sic) 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. The practice of forced labour is condemned in almost every international instrument dealing with human rights. It is interesting to find that as far back as 1930 long before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into being, International Labour Organisation adopted Convention No. 29 laying down that every member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this convention shall "suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms" and this prohibition was elaborated in Convention No. 105 adopted by the International Labour Organisation in 1957. The words "forced or compulsory labour" in Convention No. 29 had of course a limited meaning but that was so on account of the restricted definition of these words given in Article 2 of the Convention. Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibit forced or compulsory labour. Article 23 is in the same strain and it enacts a prohibition against forced labour in whatever form it may be found. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents laid some emphasis on the word "similar" and contended that it is not every form of forced labour which is prohibited by Article 23 but only such form of forced labour as is similar to "begar" and since "begar" means labour or service which a person is forced to give without receiving any remuneration for it, 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 words "other similar forms of forced labour". This contention seeks to unduly restrict the amplitude of the prohibition against forced labour enacted in Article 23 and is in our opinion not well founded.
Article 8 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chandrawati Devi vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 15 December, 2020
23. He informs that this Court, noticing the plight of mid day meal cooks had passed an order in Writ - A No.9927 of 2020 (Chandrawati Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein a similar issue ,with regard to payment of wages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month to the Cooks preparing Mid Day meal, was held to be other form of forced labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.The Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others; (1982) 3 SCC 235 had allowed the writ petition and gave directions for payment of minimum wages to the Cooks across the State of Uttar Pradesh vide judgment dated 15.12.2020. He further argues that the said order was set aside in Special Appeal Defective No.123 of 2021 mainly on the ground that the relief granted by the Court was beyond what was prayed for in the said writ petition.
Karbhari Bhimaji Rohamare vs Shanker Rao Genuji Kolhe & Ors on 18 November, 1974
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karbhari Bhimaji Rohamare v. Shanker Rao Genuji Kolhe; (1975) 1 SCC 252 explained that for determining the payments made, it is the substance rendering the form of the essence of payment rather than its nomenclature which should be the guiding factor for determining the nature of payments made irrespective of the use of word ''honorarium' or ''salary' or ''allowance'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded in Para - 6 as under: