Bonded Labour Abolition Act

1. LABOUR
SYSTEM
(ABOLITION
)
ACT, 1976
Kashyap Thakkar | Danish Kanungo | Dhvani Gajjar | Raj
Amreliya
SEM V | Labour Law - I

2. WHAT IS BONDED LABOUR?
➤ Bonded labour (or debt bondage) occurs when a
person’s labour is demanded in return for a loan.
➤ The person is then tricked into working for little or
no pay.
➤ The value of their work is usually greater than the
original loan.
➤ In many cases the loan is passed down from
parent to child.
➤ Female bonded labourers will often be subject to
sexual abuse by their ‘employer’.

3. WHAT IS BONDED LABOUR?
➤ Around 20 million people are estimated to be in
bonded labour worldwide.
➤ Bonded labour is most likely to exist in situations
of poverty where an unexpected expense such
as medical costs or a marriage dowry forces an
individual to borrow.
➤ Bonded labour in India is not just an economic
issue, but a social issue linked with caste.

4. BONDED LABOUR SYSTEM
(ABOLITION) ACT, 1976
➤ The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act purports
to abolish all debt agreements and obligations
arising out of India's longstanding bonded labour
system.
➤ It frees all bonded labourers, cancels any
outstanding debts against them, prohibits the
creation of new bondage agreements, and orders
the economic rehabilitation of freed bonded
laborers by the state.
➤ It also criminalizes all post-act attempts to
compel a person to engage in bonded labour.

5. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT
1. Totally abolishes bonded labour
2. To identify and rehabilitate bonded labourers
3. Committees to be formed at the district level
4. Punishment of up to 3yrs imprisonment and/or
fine
5. Any attachment of property of bonded
labourers stands cancelled form the date of
enforcement of the act
6. Employers not to evict the bonded labourer
from the accommodation provided

6. CASE
LAWS

7. BANDHUA
MUKTI MORCHA
V.
UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS
(1983)

8. FACTS
➤ The Petitioner was an ‘an organisation dedicated to
the cause of release of bonded labourers’.
➤ It conducted a survey in stone quarries and mines
in Faridabad district.
➤ It found that several workmen in these mines were
migrant workers from other States in India were
‘bonded labourers.’
➤ The mine owners did not provide them with shelter,
clean drinking water, latrines or medical facilities,
among other things. The workers were also subject
to respiratory infections due to the pollution
generated by stone crushers.

9. FACTS
➤ There also existed an illegal system of thekedars
who extracted a large portion of wages from
workmen as commission.
➤ The Petitioner, on behalf of these workmen,
addressed a letter to the Court invoking the
jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution and
sought reliefs for:
a. reduction in air pollution
b. clean and potable drinking water
c. conservancy facilities
d. medical facilities
e. compensation.

10. FACTS
➤ The Supreme Court treated it as public interest
litigation and appointed a commission for inquiry
into the Petitioner’s allegations.

11. DECISION & REASONING
➤ In 1976, the Parliament enacted the Bonded Labour
System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and by virtue of the
provisions of the said Act, the bonded labour system
has been declared to be illegal in this country.
➤ Any person who is wrongfully and illegally employed as
a labourer in violation of the provisions of the Act. He is
deprived of his liberty.
➤ There cannot be any manner of doubt that any person
who is wrongfully and illegally detained and is deprived
of his liberty can approach this Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution for his freedom from wrongful and
illegal detention, and for being set at liberty.

12. DECISION & REASONING
➤ The second ground which raises the question whether
the letter addressed by a party to this Court can be
treated as a writ petition and in the absence of any
verified petition.
➤ Article 32 or for that matter any other article does not
lay down any procedure which has to be followed to
move to Court for relief against the violation of
fundamental rights.
➤ The facts and circumstances differ from case to case.
Whenever, however, there is an allegation of violation
of fundamental rights, it becomes the responsibility
and also the sacred duty of this Court to protect such
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.