LAWS(SC)-1991-2-11

BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 21, 1991
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court by the judgment dated 16th December, Bandhua Mukhti Morcha Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1984 2 SCR 67 disposed of the main matter. By the judgment the Court gave certain directions and appointed Mr. Lakshmidhar Misra, the then Central Labour Commissioner to investigate and submit a report to the Court keeping the 21 directives in view. Subsequently, on a petition for contempt at the instance of the petitioner, Dr. Jain of the Faculty of the National Labour Institute was appointed to inquire into the measures and report on the extent to which the Court directives had been implemented and to present to the Court a clear picture of the issues involved for enabling the Court to make necessary assessment and reach its conclusion as to whether the directions were being implemented,and as to whether it was appropriate or in the matter of monitoring the problems, some other course was necessary to be adopted. Dr. Jain has also given his report.

(2.) Since the judgment delivered in December, 1983 did not conclude the matter and the Court intended monitoring the subsequent steps, we heard the matter in July, 1990. Swami Agnivesh appearing on behalf of the persons said to be freed bonded labour, supplied a list of Such persons from the Faridabad quarries who, according to him, required rehabilitation in terms of the scheme for freed bonded labour. The Registry pointed out that the list was not complete in the sense that it did not bear consecutive numbers and counsel for the petitioner had been called upon to rectify the defect. We do not find any adequate response from him. In due course, a letter came from the Director General, Labour Welfare in the Ministry of Labour dated 24th January, 1991, wherein the relevant aspect was dealt with thus:

(3.) This matter was, therefore, placed for directions and counsel for the parties have again been heard. They have suggested that the exact number should be determined and the persons should be identified so that with reference to that number directions for rehabilitation may be given. An apprehension has been indicated that if the matter is left to the State Government with no definite details, particularly when the State Government has disclosed a smaller number, the benefit contemplated by the scheme and the Court's order would not be available and monitoring would not be effective.