FACTS:

A letter to Hon’ble Bhagwati, J., was addressed by the petitioner, an organization dedicated to the purpose for the arrival of strengthened workers in the country. Declaring:

There were a large number of workers from different parts of the nation employed in some of the stone quarries organised under “brutal and insufferable circumstances” in the region of Faridabad, Haryana State;

Reinforced employees were a significant number of them;

That the legislative provisions and the numerous social security legislation went to the assistance of those workers were certainly not being enforced in support of these workers.

The applicant also listed the names of the stone quarries and the points of concern of the workers who functioned as fortified workers in the letter

For the lawful use of the various social security laws, the Mining Act, 1952 Inter-State Migrant Workers (Regulation of Jobs and Quality of Service) Act 1979, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, Bonded Labour system (Abolition) Act 1976, Minimum Wages Act, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Payment of Salaries Act 1976, Employees State protection Act, Maternity Benefits Act and so on to these workers working in the aforementioned stone quarries to complete the most inhuman exploitation of the wretchedness, suffering and defencelessness of these victims. The Court viewed the letter as a petition for writing, and named a committee to inquire about the petitioner’s claims.

ISSUES INVOLVED:

Regardless about if Article 32 of the Constitution is at present dragged in when no big right is infringed on the applicants or employees referred to in the lawsuit.

Can a letter tending to this Court be regarded as a written appeal and can this Court be moved to exercise its written locale without any controlled request?

Will it be possible for the Court, during a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution, to appoint any committee or investigative agency to investigate the allegations raised and to return to the Court on the basis of an investigation to allow the Court to exercise its power and position under Article 32 of the Constitution?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER:

In the presumed stone quarries, the entire environment was loaded with residue and it was hard for anyone to inhale;

A portion of the labourers were not permitted to leave the quarries of stone and provided restricted work;

There was no facility to offer unadulterated drinking water, and the employees were forced to drink dirty nullah water;

In any event, the employees did not have a legal safe house, they stayed in jhuggies with stones heaped on each other as dividers and straw covering the top that was unnecessarily low to stand and that did not handle the expense of any security against the sun.

Also, downpour; a number of the staff suffered from persistent illness; (vi) no pay was given to staff who had been injured as a result of work-related misfortunes;

There were no herbal therapy or tutoring offices.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT:

Article 32 of the Constitution is not drawn to the appeal as it does not infringe the central right of the petitioner or the employees listed in the appeal

A letter sent to this Court by a committee should not be considered as a written appeal.

In litigation pursuant to Article 32, this Court is not allowed to name a committee or an investigative agency to investigate the allegations contained in the writ appeal.

Reports made by such commissions are based on ex-parte explanations that have not been investigated and thus have no proof and

There could be restricted workers in the stone quarries and stone smashers in the State of Haryana, but they were not reinforced workers under the scope of the articulation as used in the 1976 Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act.

JUDGEMENT:

The Court, in its judgement, spoke of the importance of protecting the freedoms or rights of children to the education, protection, health and development of India as a democratic republic. Though perceiving that child labour could not be rapidly nullified due to monetary need, the Court found that steps can be taken down to earth to safeguard and advance youth rights in the destitution-stricken and helpless populaces of Indian society. On the side of its decision, the Court referred to various fundamental rights and order principles of the Indian Constitution, including Article 21 (right to life and freedom of the individual), Article 24 (denies employment of children under the age of 14 in plants, mines or other hazardous undertakings), Article 39(e) (disallows citizens to be coerced into occupations unfit for their age or quality), Article 39(f) (represents the State’s duty to protect children from violence and to guarantee children the ability and offices to build them in a stable manner) and Article 45 (requires the State to include all children under the age of 14 free compulsory training).

In addition, the Court acknowledged the commitments made by India under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide all children in the world with free basic education and to safeguard children against financial violence. The legislation needed to nullify child labour set out in a preceding instance, M.C. Mehta v. Tamil Nadu and Ors Province. [ii] was cited by the Court and fused in applications to the Uttar Pradesh and Bihar states. The demands included directing States to find a way to outline plans for the rational disposal of child labour under the age of 14; providing uniform guidance to all young people employed in manufacturing plants, logging, and other businesses; ensuring that children obtain supplementary rich nutrition; and governing occasional registration of health.

CONCLUSION:

This case, along with other PIL cases on the subject of child labor and the reach of child labor devastation wars, has been successful in shedding light on concerns regarding child labor concerns and positioning the issue clearly on the administration plan. Policymaking and law are moving towards the formal annulment of child labor and various activities are being attempted to annihilate gruesome child labor, especially in the area of education. One result has been that the presence of child workers in the carpet industry has been limited. Be that as it may, a huge number of children continue to be abused in India, despite everything, and there is a dire need for more grounded and increasingly compelling child rights insurance.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs