The Article 23 laid down in the Indian Constitution, prohibits Traffic in human beings and beggar and other similar forms of Forced Labour. It also lays down that any contravention of this provision shall be declared as an offence punishable in accordance with law. Forced Labour is form of work done performed by an individual under coerced circumstances. The individual is either intimidated that he might lose his job or earning, no matter how little payment he receives. There are various other organizations that prohibit Forced Labour including International Labour Organization, European Convention of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal Declaration of Human rights amongst others. In this paper, the author aims to provide an analysis of how payment of paltry wages to an employee shall also amount to Forced Labour. Force may arise in several ways, which is why anything that compels a person to continue the labour even in extreme difficult conditions shall be seen as a reason of force. When the minimum wages decided by the government are provided, that would not amount to Forced Labour as the person is getting paid as per the decided standards. However, when the payment is below the minimum decided wages, it shall be considered as Forced Labour. To further the contention, the author shall majorly discuss landmark cases propounded by the Supreme Court of India and High Courts providing an overall perspective of how the courts dealt with such circumstances.
The pandemic forced companies towards the reduction of wage, the one who cannot afford unemployment have to work at the reduced wage as they were not left with any option. Most of the households which have been fallen into poverty after being removed from job from formal and informal sector both are working at reduced wage for fulfilment of the basic need of their livelihood. In is facing the problem of lower wage pre pandemic also, as per the International Labour Organisation’s Global Wage Report 2020-21 India has given a lowest rise in wages compared to its neighbouring nations. The cases discussed in the paper highlight such distressful economic conditions and how people are further exploited.
Recently in the case of Chandrawati Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.[1], the Allahabad High Court dealt with the issue of Forced Labour in detail while passing an order. In the matter in hand, Petitioner was working as a cook in Basic Primary School Pinesar, Basti for making mid-day-meal since 2005. The Petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court alleging that despite working since such a long period, she was removed from the job without any opportunity. The Petitioner was paid only monthly wages amounting to Rs. 1000/-. The respondent in the matter contested that as per the Government Order dated 24th April 2010, wages for the cook is fixed at Rs. 1000/-, which was increased to Rs. 1500/- in 2019. Further, it was contested that as per the government order, people who had their children studying in the school would be given preference while being recruited as a cook. Since, the Petitioner’s child did not study in school, she cannot be considered for new appointment.
Looking at the facts of the case, it certainly raises a question as to whether payment of such paltry wages would amount as another form of Forced Labour? This case majorly dealt with Article 13, Article 21 and Article 23 of the Indian Constitution guaranteeing, the protection of fundamental rights and rule of law[2], protection of life and personal liberty[3], and prohibition of traffic in human beings and Forced Labour[4] respectively.
This question was first dealt in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,[5] wherein the Apex Court at New Delhi dealt with the plight and poor conditions of the construction workers and labourers working for the Asian Games, highlighting non-payment of the minimum wages prescribed. The workers and the labourers for construction were entitled a minimum wage of Rs. 9.25 per day, however, this entire amount was not paid to them. The Union of Ministry of Labour paid this amount to the contractors and jamadars who recruited the workers, then these ‘middlemen’ deducted a sum of Rs. 1 per day. Hence some workers received Rs. 8.25 per day and the women workers received merely Rs. 7 per day. These workers were also not provided with any proper living condition and medical facilities that were entitled to them according to Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. This case highlighted a lot of different aspects and hence is a landmark case when Labour Law is to be considered. It promulgated various meanings of words in order to provide wider protection to the workers from any sort of exploitation. The court in the matter looked widely the Article 23 of the Indian Constitution and held that even though fundamental rights are available any wrong done by the state and its authorities, Article 23 provides protection to individuals not just against the state but also against other private citizens. Hence, traffic in human beings or any form beggar and other similar forms of Forced Labour that is practiced by anyone would violate the fundamental rights. It was important for the Constitution-makers to ensure that such socio-economic rights reached out to every common man, and hence this Article was included under Fundamental Rights available to the citizens of the country.
The Courts also looked at the history of enactment of Article 23 in detail, and elaborated that the words ‘Forced Labour’,‘Traffic in Human Beings’, and ‘Begar’, were specifically used in order to provide a wider scope than what was already mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Begar is commonly used Hindi Term that would come under the ambit of Forced Labour as it basically means a person is compelled to work without any proper and justified remuneration/wages. This meaning was laid down by the courts in the case of Vasudevan v. S.D. Mital, 1962,[6] by the Division of Bombay High Court. Forced Labour was also prohibited under the International Labour Organization. Further, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978,[7] the court was of the view while interpreting Articles and Provisions of the Indian Constitution especially in the case of Fundamental Rights, the courts of law should always try to widen the protection under these rather than to lessen their scope by sticking to the meaning and content only.
Dealing with the case in hand in People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.[8], the court held that even if a person is paid remuneration but is under a specific contract which he is forced to perform, would also come under the ambit of Forced Labour. Therefore, an employee cannot be forced by compulsion of law to keep and continue working for the employer. In this case, the labourers and the workers who were being paid less wages than what was prescribed by the government, had no choice and therefore were compelled. The power of making a choice is known as the Hobson’s Choice, however, the workers were extremely poor that they did not have the power. Due to the economic and financial conditions they agreed to work at whatsoever low rates to fulfil the basic conditions of their family. The jamadars and contractors taking advantage of the situation, continued to deducted money from the minimum prescribed wages for their personal benefits. So even if the workers voluntarily agreed to work due to reasons such as extreme hunger, poverty, unemployment, starvation, it would be considered as forced form of labour. The worker is at no position to bargain or fight for his right and due to this compulsion agrees to work for the contractor. Therefore, where a person is being paid below minimum wages for a service provided by him, would be considered as Forced Labour under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution.
After pronouncing the judgement, the court also emphasised upon the duties of the State to take necessary constitutional obligations for the benefit of the person and the section of people in case of violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution to that person. Further the state should take measures against the person who is violating such rights. The courts shall also be open for people who have suffered, but is it is the primary duty of the state to prevent any such incidents to larger extent. The court in this case held that it is the duty of Union of India and Delhi Administration along with Delhi Development Authority to ensure that these labour laws are maintained and not violated by jamadars or contractors.
Coming back to the case of Chandrawati Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.[9] the court made a detailed analysis of all the facts and scenarios whilst observing the landmark cases, it was thus firmly held that payment of wages amounting to merely Rs. 1000/- per day to a worker-cook of a mid-day meal school since 2005 to 2019 was clearly and a form of Forced Labour which is very well prohibited under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. Like the conditions of workers for construction of Asian Games, the Petitioner here was not in the power and position to bargain and fight for her rights for a long period of 14 years and continued to suffer after which she was unexpectedly removed making the entire situation worse.
Despite low payments such as Rs. 1000-1500/- per month, the Petitioner is still readily willing to take her job and suffer the injustices. Looking at the facts the court could clearly see that people have been badly hit by the economic conditions that they are willing to work for paltry wages as well. They do have the Hobson’s choice, which is why the Petitioner requested the court to get her job back at whatever rates as the State my deem fit to pay. The court firmly held that by allowing her to work at such paltry wages would make the court of guilty of violating her rights under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. The court issued a writ of general mandamus and directed the State to remedy the mistake and to ensure payment of wages as per the rates prescribed under Minimum Wages Act to all the cooks with retrospective effect from 2005 till date by paying the difference.
ALSO READ- A. Rangaswami v Registrar of Trade Unions - 'Labour law'
[1] Chandrawati Devi vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (15.12.2020 - ALLHC); MANU/UP/2368/2020
[2] India Const., art. 13
[3] India Const., art. 21
[4] India Const., art. 23
[5] AIR 1982 SC 1473
[6] MANU/MH/0169/1962
[7] MANU/SC/0133/1978
[8] Supra note 5.
[9] Supra note 1.
0 Comments