Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

CLASS & SECTION: BBA LLB 4 A, B & C

SUBJECT: Constitutional Law - II
CODE : LLB 204
FACULTY: Ms. Ayushi Jain

CASE STUDY (E- PSDA)

People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India & Others

AIR 1982 SC 147

Date of the Judgment- 18 September, 1982

Facts- In this case there was a complaint of a violation of Article 24 of the Constitution of India
(which prohibits employing children below the age of 14 years in hazardous employment) on
behalf of child labourers employed in construction work in Delhi. The labourers who worked on
the ASIAD-82 sites both on stadium and the infrastructure like flyovers and hotels, were recruited
by agents of construction contractors from backward villages of Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal,
Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. Working at a feverish pace, often far beyond the
working hours fixed by laws without the minimum daily wages due to them living in hovels, their
children dying of malnutrition and they themselves frequently becoming victims of accidents,
these workers were forced to complete the ASIAD projects in time by November 19. The terrible
working and living conditions to which these workers were subjected to were first brought to
public notice by a fact-finding team of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) which
visited some of the major sites in July and August 1981 and interviewed the workers as well as
their employers.

The People’s Union for Democratic Rights followed this up by filing a writ petition before the
Supreme Court on November 16, 1981, by way of PIL in order to issue observance of the
provisions of various labour laws in relation to the workers employed in the construction work of
the ASIAD-82 projects.

Statutes Discussed- Article 14, 17, 23, 24 and 32 Constitution of India, Minimum wages Act,
1948, Equal Remuneration Act.

Issues- 1) Whether the writ petition can be maintainable against the private individual under
Article-32 of the Indian Constitution?

2) Whether Article-21 of the Indian Constitution also include right to live with human dignity and
right to livelihood?
Judgement- The court by its decision upheld the right of a poor worker to directly approach the
Supreme Court under Article 32of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of rights created
under various labour laws and particularly under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970, Interstate Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and
Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, Employment of Children Act,
1970 and Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Supreme Court extended the scope of the meaning of
article 21 of the Constitution (right to life) to include the right to livelihood along with the ‘right
to live with basic human dignity’.

A wider meaning has also been given to the provisions of Article 21, 17, 23 of the Constitution so
as to cover the cases of Non-payment or less payment of wages to the workers which they are
entitled under the provisions of law. The Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of Article
23 in detail. The Court held that the scope of Article 23 is wide and unlimited and strikes at “traffic
in human beings” and “beggar and other forms of forced labour” wherever they are found. It is not
merely “beggar” which is prohibited by Article 23 but also all other forms of forced labour. This
Article strikes at forced labour in whatever form it may manifest itself, because it is violative of
human dignity and contrary to basic human values. And therefore, strikes to violate Article 21
also. The court had declared solemn constitutional responsibility of the government and its
agencies to see that the various laws are properly implemented, not only by it but also by private
persons or non-governmental establishments. The Supreme Court used expressions “bonded
labour” and “forced labour” in Article 21 to “right to live with human dignity”. The rights and
benefits guaranteed to the labourers under various labour laws were made parts of basic Human
Dignity and raised to the status of Fundamental Rights.

Case Analysis- 1) Some of the fundamental rights can also be enforced against private individuals
and it is not the fact that fundamental rights can only be enforced against the state. The private
individuals are held liable if there is a breach of fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

2) It was observed that how courts on the matters of the rights of poor’s of the society can to imply
complete justice break the chains of rules and regulations and through bending and moulding them
it is used for the benefit of the people and for public welfare at large.

3) Here in this case the rights of the workers was at sake and it was a great demand from the justice
side to react on the matters of the labourer’s at some point of time. It was seen and observed that
even after 30 years of independence till this case the workers were exploited and their rights were
infringed now and then by their employers.

4) The case puts a great plot of importance on the point that how the concept of PIL(Public Interest
Litigation , the then newly introduced) can be used for public good at large and how law can be
functioned to achieve for the compensation and relief in exchange of the atrocities which they had
suffered.
5) How the courts by its powers can form and interpret for the benefit of public at large to attain
justice at its fullest the words which if not interpreted would remain in ambiguity or would be
limited to mere certain meaning.

6) This case law gives important knowledge of various laws and the interpretation of them under
the Constitution of India. It provides the deep knowledge of the judicial interpretation of the word
‘life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.