GOLU Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Criminal Writ Petition No. 1692 of 2011 filed by the appellant, has been dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Appellant Golu had filed the aforesaid criminal writ petition of habeas corpus alleging therein that 13 persons, whose particulars were given in the writ petition, were illegally detained by respondents No. 4 and 5 (who are brick kiln owner and the Jamadar of the said brick kiln) and they are getting bonded labour work from them.

(2.) While issuing notice of motion in the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge directed the District Magistrate, Tarn Taran (respondent No. 2 therein) to submit a report on the allegations made by the appellant in the petition with regard to compliance of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. On the preceding date of hearing, the District Magistrate submitted the report on affidavit stating therein that when Tehsildar, Tarn Taran visited the premises of brick kiln of respondents No. 4 and 5 on 13.9.2011, no bonded labour was found in the premises of respondents No. 4 and 5. The Tehsildar not only recorded the statements of respondents No. 4 and 5, detail of which was given in the writ petition, but also recorded the statement of Munshi/Clerk at the brick kiln and the statements of some of the labourers who were working at that time in the brick kiln. All of them had stated that neither the appellant nor the alleged detenues ever worked at the brick kiln of respondents No. 4 and 5. However, the Munshi of the brick kiln stated that the appellant and his companions had taken certain amount from him for doing work at the brick kiln after Monsoon season, for which an agreement was made on 25.8.2011, but under the said agreement neither the appellant nor the alleged detenues had started the work at the said brick kiln.

(3.) In response to the aforesaid reply filed by the District Magistrate, the appellant filed the rejoinder by taking the stand that the appellant and his companions were allowed to leave the brick kiln on 12.9.2011 on the intervention of Tehsildar, Tarn Taran, as per his verbal order.