ROHIT VASAVADA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER IFFCO KALOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bonded labour in its primitive form might have disfrom most parts of the country more due to pressure of public Opinion and civic consciousness than the awareness or the operation of Art. 23 of our Constitution embodying a mandate against forced labour. But all the same sophisticated forms of such bonded labour persist and thrive in many pockets the task of identifying then and locating the exploited groups is none too easy. Exploitation of labour being a phenomena older than the known authentic history of man cannot be banished over night by any legislative or constitutional fiat or even by enlightened public opinion. The Courts in this country are to be the sentinels of human freedom and this duty enjoins them to be ever vigilant to extend protection to the exploited class. In recent times Courts have understood their adjudicatory functions as not merely limited to settlement of inter-party disputes or issues raised but as envisaging a larger role in securing constitutional rights to parties who might not have them selves made an approach to the Court despite violent inroad into their rights on account of poverty or ignorance or any other equally relevant social disability. The story unfolded in this case is an instance which called for our immediate attention.

(2.) The content of Art. 21 of the Constitution and the scope of Art. 23 have been examined in recent cases by the Supreme Court and the following principles have become well settled:

(3.) By parity of reasoning when due to economic compulsions are forced to work under inhuman conditions or sub-human without the safeguards facilities and amenities secured to under law being made available to them irrespective of the que of wages paid to them and their apparent consent the labour would be forced labour so as to invite contravention of 23 of the Constitution of India.