Sumitra v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the enquiry report dated 02.05.2023, issued by the SDM, Narela, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and her late husband that they are bonded labourers and, therefore, they are entitled to financial assistance under the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourer, 2016.

2. It is stated that the Petitioner and her late husband - Dhanik Lal, came to Delhi in 1989. It is stated that the Petitioner's husband worked as a Raj Mistry for about ten years and in 1999 they started working as construction workers in Budh Vihar, Delhi where a school was being constructed by the Respondent No.3 herein/Mr. Ashok Kumar. It is stated that in 2000 the Petitioner and her husband were forced by Respondent No.3 and his son to work at their farm house situated at Khasra No.66/17, Village Lampur, Near Ghoga Shamsan, Delhi. It is stated that they were given some portion of land to live in the farm house and were also promised some part of the cultivated crops for their sustenance and in return they were asked to work at the agricultural field of Respondent No.3 and to take care of the farm house and the cattle in it. It is stated that despite earning Rs.[5] Lakhs from the agricultural produce, Respondent No.3 didn't use to pay any wages to the Petitioner and her late husband. It is stated that for the past 23 years the Petitioner and her late husband have not been paid any wages by the Respondent No.3. It is stated that in 2019 complaints were given by the Petitioner and her late husband to various authorities stating that they have been kept as bonded labours.

3. It is stated that the Petitioner and her late husband approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 1101/2020 seeking directions for issuance of release certificate, interim relief amount, for conducting summary trial, for recovery of earn wages and for their rehabilitation. This Court vide Order dated 29.10.2020 directed the Respondents therein to treat the said Writ Petition as a representation and pass appropriate orders. It is stated that when the said Order was not complied with, the Petitioner herein filed a contempt petition against the District Magistrate, North Delhi. It is stated that after the intervention of this Court, financial assistance of Rs.20,000/- was provided to the Petitioner and her husband and a fresh enquiry was ordered to be conducted. It is stated that vide Enquiry Report dated 07.09.2022, the SDM, Narela, rejected the claim of the Petitioner and her husband that they are bonded labourers. It is stated that the Petitioner's husband passed away on 28.12.2022. It is stated that in the contempt proceedings initiated by the late husband of the Petitioner herein, the SDM, Narela, was directed to conduct a fresh enquiry and submit its report within two months.

4. It is stated that on 02.05.2023, an enquiry report was submitted by the SDM, Narela, wherein it is stated that the Petitioner and her late husband cannot be covered under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bonded Labour Act') and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefits under the Act. Aggrieved by the said enquiry report, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Heard the Counsels and perused the material on record.

6. The Bonded Labour Act was brought in to abolish the bonded labour system and to prevent the economic and physical exploitation of the weaker sections of the people. It was found that in different parts of the country a system of usury exists under which the debtor or his descendants or dependants have to work for the creditor without reasonable wages or with no wages in order to extinguish the existing debt. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reveals that at times several generations worked under bondage for repayment of a paltry sum which had been taken by some remote ancestor. In order to get over this situation, the Bonded Labour Act was brought in. Relevant Sections of the Bonded Labour Act which are relevant for adjudication of the present case are Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2(g) and the same reads as under: "(b) “agreement” means an agreement (whether written or oral, or partly written and partly oral) between a debtor and creditor, and includes an agreement providing for forced labour, the existence of which is presumed under any social custom prevailing in the concerned locality. Explanation.—The existence of an agreement between the debtor and creditor is ordinarily presumed, under the social custom, in relation to the following forms of forced labour, namely: Adiyamar, Baramasia, Basahya, Bethu, Bhagela, Cherumar, Garru-Galu, Hali, Hari, Harwail, Holya, Jana, Jeetha, Kamiya, Khundit-Mundit, Kuthia, Lakhari, Munjhi, Mat, Munish system, Nit-Majoor, Paleru, Padiyal, Pannayilal, Sagri, Sanji, Sanjawat, Sewak, Sewakia, Seri, Vetti; ****** (d) “bonded debt” means an advance obtained, or presumed to have been obtained, by a bonded labourer under, or in pursuance of, the bonded labour system; (e) “bonded labour” means any labour or service rendered under the bonded labour system; (f) “bonded labourer” means a labourer who incurs, or has, or is presumed to have, incurred, a bonded debt; (g) “bonded labour system” means the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that—

(i) in consideration of an advance obtained by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants (whether or not such advance is evidenced by any document) and in consideration of the interest, if any, due on such advance, or

(ii) in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or

(iii) in pursuance of any obligation devolving on him by succession, or

(iv) for any economic consideration received by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants, or

(v) by reason of his birth in any particular caste or community, he would—

(1) render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person dependent on him, labour or service, to the creditor, or for the benefit of the creditor, for a specified period or for an unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal wages, or (2) forfeit the freedom of employment or other means of livelihood for a specified period or for an unspecified period, or (3) forfeit the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, or (4) forfeit the right to appropriate or sell at market-value any of his property or product of his labour or the labour of a member of his family or any person dependent on him. and includes the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a surety for a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that in the event of the failure of the debtor to repay the debt, he would render the bonded labour on behalf of the debtor; [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any system of forced, or partly forced labour under which any workman being contract labour as defined in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), or an inter-State migrant workman as defined in clause (e) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (30 of 1979), is required to render labour or service in circumstances of the nature mentioned in sub-clause (1) of this clause or is subjected to all or any of the disabilities referred to in sub-clauses (2) to (4), is „bonded labour system‟, within the meaning of this clause.]"

7. A perusal of the abovementioned Sections discloses that a Bonded Labourer means a labourer who has incurred a bonded debt and bonded debt has been defined to mean an advance obtained by a bonded labourer under the bonded labour system. Bonded labour system has been defined as a system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered, into an agreement with the creditor in consideration of an advance obtained by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants. The definition of bonded labour system also takes into consideration the practice where a person has entered into bonded labour in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or in pursuance of any obligation devolving on him by succession, or for any economic consideration received by him or by any of his lineal ascendants or descendants, or by reason of his birth in any particular caste or community. Under the bonded labour system a bonded labour would render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person dependent on him, labour or service, to the creditor, or for the benefit of the creditor, for a specified period or for an unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal wages.

8. A reading of the abovementioned Sections shows that a debt is a sine qua non for the application of the Bonded Labour Act. In the absence of any debt or in the absence of any customary or social obligation under which the person, who has taken a debt, is forced to work for the creditor, the Bonded Labour Act does not apply.

9. This Court has perused the material on record. The allegation of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner and her late husband came to Delhi in 1989 and in 1999 they started working as construction workers in Budh Vihar, Delhi where a school was being constructed by Respondent No.3 herein and thereafter they started working at the farm house of the Respondent No.3 which was situated at Khasra No.66/17, Village Lampur, Near Ghoga Shamsan, Delhi. The principal allegation against Respondent No.3 is that he did not pay any wages to the Petitioner or her late husband for 23 years. There is no allegation, submission or material to show that the Petitioner and her late husband were working at the farm house of Respondent No.3 because they had taken any kind of loan or debt from Respondent No.3 or his son or any of his family members and that in lieu of that debt/loan/advance they were being forced by Respondent No.3 to work at his farm house. In fact the enquiry report of the SDM does not reveal that the Petitioner and her late husband were forced to live in the farm house also. The SDM has actually found that there is a mis-match in the address proof of the Petitioner and her late husband as the Petitioner's late husband has given different address at different points of time. The SDM has gone to the extent of stating that it is possible that the Petitioner's husband is acting at the behest of one Nirmal Gorana who helped the Petitioner and her husband or at the behest of builder lobby or real estate agents who are conspiring against Respondent No.3 in order to grab his land. The SDM has examined all the material before him in great detail and has come to a conclusion that it is possible that the Petitioner's husband had filed the complaint at the behest of some unscrupulous land mafia in order to grab the land in which he and his wife, i.e. the Petitioner herein were living for the past 23 years.