High CourtsDivision Bench(2013) 08 P&H CK 0418

Shiv Bhatta Company and Another vs National Human Rights Commission and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 19 August 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J · Augustine George Masih, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWP-17927-2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 660 words

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The petitioners are running a brick kiln and have approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the report of the National Human Rights Commission (in short NHRC)/respondent No. 1 dated 09.07.2013. The grievance of the petitioners is that the NHRC/respondent No. 1 on the basis of certain presumptions has declared the labourers working in the brick kiln as bonded labour ignoring the reports of the two Deputy Commissioners who had found no such bonded labour at the brick kiln. The inquiry by the NHRC arose out of a complaint made qua 14 families of labourers taken to petitioner No. 1 located in village Kultana, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak, Haryana as the labourers were alleged to be exploited by the owners of the brick kiln and not paid wages and held in bondage. The complainant stated that the District Magistrate, Rohtak, had assured that appropriate action would be taken in pursuance to his complaint dated 15.02.2013 by communication dated 21.02.2013, but the owner of the brick kiln came to know about it and on 20.02.2013 called the labourers to his office, abused them, snatched their mobile phones and they were forcibly shifted to Kaliram Bhatta in village Birdhana, District Jhajjar. The information regarding forcible shifting of labourers was given to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak, who expressed his inability to take any action as Kaliram Bhatta was located in another District.

2.

It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the NHRC took cognizance of the matter on 11.03.2013 and asked the District Magistrate, Jhajjar, whether the labourers named in the complaint had come to Kaliram Bhatta. The District Magistrate, Jhajjar, submitted his report to the NHRC. Another report was also forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak. The sum and substance of the two reports showed that there were defaults on the part of the petitioner in maintaining the requisite records as per the provisions of different Acts for which the petitioner is already facing legal action. However, the reports of the District Magistrates were not accepted by the NHRC qua the findings in respect of the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The fact of non-maintenance of records was a serious offence and the NHRC found that it raised presumption that the allegations made in the complaint with regard to forced labour or confining the labourers against their wishes were correct. No such satisfactory material was produced that the concerned labourers were not bonded labourers inasmuch as no documents were produced to show payments to them and a presumption was drawn by the concerned authority merely on the statement of the brick kiln owner and the labourers found at the brick kiln.

3.

We find nothing wrong in drawing of such presumption. The background of the complaint being made; the inquiry being done only on 21.02.2013 and the allegations that on 20.02.2013 the labourers had been shifted as the owners of the brick kiln had come to know about the complaint have to be kept in mind. Similarly, the factum of records showing non-compliance with the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1949 and Payment of Wages Act, 1936 etc. are also the germane to this issue. The mere statement of the labourers found at site, keeping in mind their social and economic compulsions, could not have been accepted as a gospel truth and what the NHRC has done is that it has drawn presumption from the absence of records maintained by the petitioners coupled with the failure of the petitioners to show satisfactory material as proof of making payments. Thus, the findings arrived at that the Deputy Commissioner would declare all the labourers as bonded labourers and issue them the release certificate cannot be faulted with.

4.

We are not inclined to entertain the challenge to this report in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed.