Arun Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 26 December, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Arun Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 26 December, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172310



CRWP-12588-2024                            -1-

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
117
                                                           CRWP-12588-2024
                                                           Decided on : 26.12.2024

Arun Kumar
                                                                   . . . Petitioner(s)
                                          Versus
The State of Punjab and others
                                                                . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT: Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate (through V.C.)
         for the petitioner(s).
                                ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of

Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to get detenues mentioned

in paragraph No.2 of the petition, released from the illegal custody of

respondent No.5.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends

that the petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus before this Court for

seeking immediate rescue of 14 bonded labourers (detenues herein), as these

detenues/victims belong to a marginalized community and they are unable to

approach this Hon’ble Court for redressal of their grievances. Besides,

learned counsel contends that the said bonded labouers, the details of which

are given in Annexure P-1 appended with present writ petition, are presently

working in the BP Brick Kiln, situated at Village Bhurgi Dev Singh, Tehsil

Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab, which is being run by respondent No.5.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the detenues/bonded

labourers are not being paid any wages for the past two months and are being

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-12-2024 22:43:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172310

CRWP-12588-2024 -2-

forced to work more than 15 hours per day. Besides, neither adequate rations

are being provided to them for livelihood nor they are being allowed to return

to their native places. Thus, petitioner prays for the immediate release of the

detenues as per the representation dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-3).

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

that he will be satisfied in case respondent No.2, who is the competent

authority in terms of Section 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System

(Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1976’) is

directed to take decision in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in

the case of Murti v. State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 32 of 2013, decided

on 11.01.2013). The relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus:

“It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant
in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in
para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at
the brick kiln of respondent Nos.4 & 5 are being kept as bonded
labours. There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been
detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under
Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976.
We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not
mean that the allegations levelled by the appellant have been
accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District
Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding
enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the
provisions of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received.
Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred
that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have
been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and set-
aside/modify the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the learned
Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner’s writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur,
to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act and
take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period

2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-12-2024 22:43:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172310

CRWP-12588-2024 -3-

of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this
order alongwith a copy of the writ petition.”

5. A further reference is also made to the order passed in the case

of Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CRWP No. 4666 of 2020,

decided on 08.07.2020), which reads thus:

“Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a
direction to District Magistrate, Fazilka to treat this petition as a
complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act,
1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within
a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy
of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.”

6. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of with a

direction to respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, District Tarn Taran,

Punjab, to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as raised in the instant

petition and in case any substance in the allegations is found true, then to

take appropriate action under the Act of 1976, in accordance with law, within

a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

along with copy of the criminal writ petition.

7. Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of in terms as aforesaid.

(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
December 26, 2024
J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-12-2024 22:43:23 :::