ISWAR SARAN PG COLLEGE

(UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD)
BA.LLB(Hons)

10th semester

{2023-2024}

• SUBMITTED BY - Ankur Yadav

• ROLL NO. - 12
• SUBJECT – Labour Law-II
• TOPIC- Case comment on People’s Union for democratic rights and
ors. v. Union of India
• SUBMITTED TO – Mr. Ashutosh Singh

1
 Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Ashutosh Singh Sir for his valuable guidance
and support in completing my project. I would also like to express my gratitude towards our
principal Mr. Anand Shankar Singh for giving me this great opportunity to do a project on
Case comment on People’s union for democratic rights and ors. v. UOI.
Without their support and suggestions, this project would not have been completed.

Ankur Yadav
BA.LLB{HONS.}
10th SEMESTER ,2023-2024

2
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S.no. Title Pg.no.

1 Introduction, Parties involved, Facts of the case 4&5

2 Issues framed, judgement 5 to 7

3 Analysis of the case 8&9

4 Conclusion & References 10

3
 INTRODUCTION

On 11th May, 1982, the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India
& ors. Was decided by a bench comprising of J. P.N. Bhagwati and J. Baharul Islam. The
Petitioners have thrown light upon the awful and dreadful condition of labourers who were forced
to work in hostile conditions through a letter written to J. Bhagwati who treated it as a PIL.
Through this landmark judgement, Hon’ble Supreme Court has not only widened the scope and
ambit of Article 32 but also assure that the Court belongs to everyone and if there is violation of
beneficial legislations such as labour laws it will tantamount to breach of Fundamental Rights and
along-with that has given liberal interpretation to “forced labour” and “beggar”. People's Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982, stands as a cornerstone in the evolution of Indian
constitutional law, particularly in the realm of human rights and labour rights. Originating from a
writ petition filed by the People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), this case brought to light
the egregious practice of bonded labour prevalent among brick kiln workers in Delhi. The case not
only challenged the constitutional validity of bonded labour but also raised fundamental questions
about the State's obligation to protect the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court's judgment in this case marked a significant milestone
in affirming the rights of marginalized communities and establishing the State's duty to uphold and
protect these rights. This commentary will delve into the facts, issues, and implications of the
landmark judgment in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982.

Parties involved
Petitioner: People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others
Respondent:
1. Union of India
2. Delhi Administration
3. Delhi Development Authority

4
Facts of the case
1. It was a prestigious moment for India to host Asian Games 1982, and to complete its
undertaking the Government of India has to accomplish various construction projects such
hotels, stadiums, etc. as per international standards.
2. Various authorities were entrusted with project, relevant here are Delhi Development
authority, New Delhi Municipal Committee and Delhi Administration.
3. These authorities engaged Contractors as Principal Employers U/S 7 of The Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for execution of their projects.
4. These Contractors entered into contract with Jamadars to hire workmen for construction
purposes.
5. Workmen from different parts of the country were hired especially from Rajasthan, Uttar
Pradesh and Orissa.
6. Men at Rs. 9.25/- per day, women at Rs. 7/- per day and children even below the age of 14
year were employed as workmen and above that Rs. 1/- was deducted from their wages by
Jamadars as their commission.
7. Workmen were not given equal wages and were not even entitled to their minimum wages
and were forced to work at feverish place and often beyond the working hours.
1. Children were dying of mal-nutrition and due to working in hazardous condition were
frequently becoming victims of serious accidents and some were dying.
2. The terrible working and living conditions of these workers were first brought to public
notice by a fact-finding team of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) which
visited some of the major sites in July and August 1981 and interviewed the workers as well
as their employers.
3. PUDR address a letter to J. Bhagwati about the same who later treated it as PIL and the case
was filed on 16th Nov, 1981.

Issues framed
1. Whether petitioner organisation is entitled to maintain the petition on behalf of labourers?
2. Whether this petition is maintainable against Union of India, Delhi Administration and Delhi
Development Authority when in actual the offending parties are private contractors?

5
 3. Whether this petition is maintainable as there is no breach of fundamental rights of labourers
but of ordinary rights under labour laws?
4. Whether the Court can pass directions under Article 32 against private contractors?

Judgement
 While dealing with first issue, it was held that petitioner organisation has locus standi to
approach to this Court on behalf of poor, ignorant, illiterate people because firstly, they were
working in a bona-fide faith and secondly the traditional rule of standing of judicial process
which only allows those people to approach to court to whom legal injury has been caused
has now been jettisoned by this Court through the Case of Judges’ Appointment and Transfer
case1 and revolutionised the concept considering the prevailing socio-economic conditions.
 With respect to second issue, it was held that although the workmen were employed under
Contractors but it was the respondent authorities who entrusted the Asiad project to
Contractors and therefore, they cannot escape from their obligation of the observance of
various labour laws. Also, Respondent authorities being Principal Employers were bound by
Sec 20 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and by Sec 17 & 18 of Inter-
State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 to provide amenities and allowances to workmen. And as
far as, employment of children below 14 is concerned then it is clearly provided under Article
24 of Indian Constitution which bars the same and is enforceable against everybody.
 The court did not accept the plea of respondents that there is no violation of FR. Since, the
petition includes the violation of Article 24 due to employment of children below 14 and
also violation of provisions of following labour laws amounts to violation of following FR’s–
 Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 and Contract Labour Act, 1970 – Article 21 – after
the judgement of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 2 and Francis Coralie Mullin V.
Administrator and ors.3 Art 21 has been given new dimensions which includes right to live
with basic human dignity and here the two beneficial legislation were intended to ensure the
labourers the basic human dignity of which they remain deprived by respondents.

1
S.P. Gupta v. UOI, 1981 Supp SCC 87
2
(1978) 1 SCC 248: AIR 1978 SC 597
3
(1981) 1 SCC 688

6
  Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – Article – 23 – The nature and scope of Article 23 has been
discussed, and held that labour which is not rendered willingly but as a result of force or
compulsion is ‘forced labour’. Also, when a person provides services for remuneration which
is less than the minimum wage, said service will fall under Forced Labour.
 Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 – Article 14 – Not giving equal wages to both men and
women for their equal amounts to violation of right to equality.
Therefore, it was held that non-observance of labour laws by respondents have resulted into
violation of FR’s of labourers.
 Lastly while dealing with the fourth issue, it was held that where there is violation of Article
17, 23 or 24, Court can pass directions against private individuals since they are enforceable
against private individuals also.

Analysis of the case (case comment)

The case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982, stands as a landmark in
Indian constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in the realm of human rights and labour rights.
Originating from a writ petition filed by the People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), the case
brought to light the entrenched system of bonded labour prevalent among brick kiln workers in
Delhi. Through its judgment, the Supreme Court addressed not only the constitutional validity of
bonded labour but also the broader issues of social and economic justice embedded in the Indian
Constitution.

Protection of Fundamental Rights:

At the heart of the case lay the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Court's
analysis delved into the provisions of Articles 14, 19, and 21, emphasizing the principles of equality,
freedom, and dignity. By recognizing bonded labour as a violation of these fundamental rights, the
Court affirmed its commitment to protecting the inherent dignity and worth of every individual.

Socio-economic Realities and Systemic Injustices:

The case provided a poignant exposition of the socio-economic realities faced by marginalized
communities, particularly the brick kiln workers. Through extensive documentation and evidence
presented by PUDR, the Court gained insight into the harsh working conditions, meager wages, and

7
debt bondage trapping the workers in a cycle of exploitation. This nuanced understanding of
systemic injustices underscored the need for legal interventions to address social inequalities and
uphold the principles of justice and fairness.
Central to the Court's deliberation was the role of the State in ensuring the protection of fundamental
rights and addressing social injustices. The judgment held the government accountable for its failure
to effectively eradicate bonded labour and directed it to take immediate and concrete measures to
remedy the situation. This aspect of the judgment underscored the State's obligations under the
Constitution and highlighted the importance of proactive measures to combat social and economic
inequalities.

Judicial Activism and Role of the Courts:

The case exemplified judicial activism, wherein the Court intervened to address a pressing social
issue and protect the rights of the vulnerable. Through its interpretation of constitutional provisions
and its willingness to assert judicial authority, the Court demonstrated its role as a guardian of the
Constitution and a protector of individual liberties. This proactive stance by the judiciary set a
precedent for future cases involving human rights violations and underscored the judiciary's pivotal
role in upholding the rule of law and promoting social justice.

Legacy and Implications:

The legacy of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982, extends beyond its
immediate outcome. It has left an indelible mark on Indian legal history, shaping the trajectory of
human rights jurisprudence and inspiring advocacy efforts and legal reforms aimed at promoting
social and economic justice. The case stands as a testament to the power of the judiciary to effectuate
positive change and uphold the foundational values of democracy and equality.

In my opinion, "People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982" is a watershed
moment in Indian legal history, representing a significant stride towards the protection of
fundamental rights and the promotion of social justice. The case exemplifies the power of litigation
as a tool for social change and underscores the vital role of the judiciary in upholding the principles
enshrined in the Constitution.

8
The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court reflects a deep commitment to the values of equality,
freedom, and dignity. By recognizing bonded labour as a violation of these fundamental rights and
holding the State accountable for its failure to address the issue, the Court sent a strong message
about the importance of ensuring justice for the most vulnerable members of society.

Moreover, the case serves as a reminder of the enduring legacy of activism and advocacy in India.
It was the result of the tireless efforts of organizations like the People's Union for Democratic Rights,
which sought to amplify the voices of the marginalized and hold the government accountable for its
actions.

While the judgment marked a significant victory in the fight against bonded labour, it also
highlighted the ongoing challenges in realizing the ideals of social and economic justice. The case
underscores the need for continued vigilance and activism to address systemic inequalities and
ensure that all individuals enjoy their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

9
 Conclusion
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1982, remains a seminal case that
exemplifies the judiciary's commitment to protecting fundamental rights and promoting social
justice in India. Through its judgment, the Court addressed not only the specific issue of bonded
labour but also the broader imperative of ensuring dignity, equality, and justice for all members of
society. This case remains a beacon of hope and inspiration for those striving to build a more just
and equitable society in India and stands as a testament to the power of the law to effect positive
change and serves as a reminder of the collective responsibility to uphold the principles of
democracy and human rights.
References
i. N. Santosh Hegde, Public Interest Litigation and Control of Government, 4
Stud Adv (1992) 1.
ii. Shailendra Kishore Singh, Rhetoric and the “Rule of Law” vis-à-vis The
Supreme Court of India, CNLU LJ (2) [2011-2012] 82.
iii. Aditya Tripathi, Case Summary- PUDR v. Union of India (UOI),
LawLex.org (October 20, 2022, 2:30 pm).
iv. Kashish Gupta, Case Analysis on People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs.
Union of India, Lawbhoomi (October 22, 2022, 12:35pm).
v. S.P Gupta vs. Union of India (1981) Supp SCC 87.
vi. Gautam Bhatia, “The Freedom to Work: PUDR v. Union of India and the
meaning of Forced Labour under the Indian Constitution” SSRN (2017) 15.

10