M VENKATACHALAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NAMAKKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of a Power Loom Factory situated at Vediarasampalayam, Mampalayam Road, Tiruchengode. A habeas corpus petition was filed before this Court in H.C.P.No.581 of 2001.THE said petition was filed by one V.Kumaravel, in which the present writ petitioner was cited as fourth respondent. A complaint was made that several persons have been kept as bonder labourers in the factory owned by the fourth respondent therein. After notice to parties, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 6.7.2001 held that the object of the habeas corpus petition was to enquire into the legality of detention of the person said to be illegally detained and they were of the opinion that there was no illegal detention of any bonded labourers and therefore, they closed the habeas corpus petition. However, with reference to the second prayer of the said petition to give a direction to the District Collector to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Bonder Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for brevity "the Act") for rehabilitating the families of the erstwhile bonded labourers, the Division Bench gave liberty to the persons who have escaped from bonded labour system to approach the authorities concerned for appropriate relief. With this direction, the habeas corpus petition was closed.

(2.) PURSUANT to the said direction, proceedings were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruchengode to release and retrieve bonded labourers said to be engaged by the petitioner. The petitioner, on coming to know that such proceedings are being initiated, gave a representation to the District Collector, Namakkal stating that he was running a factory for over 20 years and the workers in the factory were well taken care of and certain persons with ulterior motive have filed the habeas corpus petition before this Court and in that the District Collector gave a report, after conducting an enquiry, that there were no bonded labourers. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer by stating that he is not the appropriate authority for providing economic and social rehabilitation and it is only the District Vigilance Committee constituted under the Act which can take suitable rehabilitation measures. Therefore, he appealed to the District Collector to cancel the order of release passed by the second respondent dated 11.7.2001.

(3.) ON notice from this Court, the first respondent/District Collector has filed a counter affidavit dated 21.6.2002. In that counter affidavit, he had also enclosed the order dated 11.7.2001 passed by the second respondent containing the reasons. That order was not challenged by the petitioner. ON the contrary, the order itself states that an information was received by the Revenue Divisional Officer that 53 families were kept as bonded labourers inside the premises of a power loom factory owned by the petitioner and, on inspection, those persons gave statements that they are kept under bondage and were not allowed to leave the factory to seek employment elsewhere, they were not paid the required minimum wages, they were put to irregular and long hours of work, they were also not allowed to meet their relatives and that they were not given leave of any kind. ON enquiry, he found that the workers also received certain amounts as advance towards rendering labour services and therefore, the provisions of the Act were attracted and hence, it was held that those 17 persons are eligible for release.