Labour Law

People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

(1982) 3 SCC 235; AIR 1982 SC 1473

Facts

Large construction projects were undertaken in Delhi for the 1982 Asian Games.
Contractors and subcontractors employed migrant and casual labourers at the project sites.
A public-interest investigation reported serious labour-law violations, including:
payment below statutory minimum wages;
use of intermediaries who deducted part of the wages;
employment of children;
unequal payment to women;
poor working conditions; and
non-compliance with protective labour enactments.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights approached the Supreme Court under Article 32.
The Government argued that the workers had voluntarily accepted the employment and that any violation was principally attributable to private contractors.

Whether payment below minimum wage amounts to forced labour.
Whether economic compulsion can make apparently voluntary labour “forced.”
Whether the Government is responsible for labour-law compliance where work is executed through contractors.
Whether a public-interest organisation could seek enforcement for vulnerable workers.

Article 23 prohibits “traffic in human beings, begar and other similar forms of forced labour.”
“Force” is not limited to physical or legal compulsion.
Labour obtained through severe economic necessity for less than the statutory minimum wage may constitute forced labour.
The minimum wage represents the least lawful return for labour.
The principal governmental authority cannot avoid responsibility by delegating work to contractors.
Where the State undertakes a project, it must ensure that contractors comply with labour legislation.
Constitutional remedies may be invoked on behalf of workers who are unable effectively to approach the court themselves.

The workers were drawn from socially and economically vulnerable groups.
Their poverty left them with little genuine bargaining power.
Although they formally agreed to work, the acceptance of wages below the legal minimum was driven by economic compulsion.
The Court held that a person who has no realistic alternative but starvation cannot be said to offer labour with complete freedom.
Payment below minimum wage therefore indicated that labour was being extracted under force within the broad constitutional meaning.
The statutory minimum was not merely a contractual entitlement but part of the constitutional protection against exploitation.
The Government could not rely upon the separate legal identity of contractors.
The Asian Games projects were governmental works, and the contractors performed the work for public authorities.
Those authorities had the power and duty to insist upon lawful wage payment and working conditions.
The Court directed governmental agencies to investigate the complaints, recover short-paid wages and enforce applicable legislation.
It also addressed child labour and equal-remuneration obligations as part of the broader duty to prevent exploitation.
The use of public-interest litigation was justified because the affected workers were unlikely to possess the resources, awareness or security required to institute individual proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that extracting labour for less than the statutory minimum wage can amount to forced labour prohibited by Article 23.
Governmental authorities remained responsible for ensuring compliance even where workers were formally employed by contractors.
Directions were issued for inspection, payment of lawful wages and enforcement of labour statutes.
Use this case for: economic compulsion combined with payment below minimum wage constitutes forced labour, and the State cannot escape responsibility through contractors.