People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India (Supreme Court, 1982) — the Asiad case

It settles three things: that Article 23 binds private persons as well as the State; that "force" includes the compulsion of poverty, so that a wage below the statutory minimum is forced labour; and that Article 24 operates of its own force, so that a child under fourteen may not be employed in construction whether or not a statute lists it as hazardous. It is also an early public interest litigation, begun by letter.

An organisation wrote to the Court about the conditions of workers engaged on the projects for the Asian Games in Delhi, the Indoor Stadium, the Asian Games Village, the swimming pool and other structures. The Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority had entrusted the work to contractors. The contractors engaged workers through jamadars who brought them from Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa and "paid to these Jamadars the minimum wage of Rs. 9.25 per day per worker and not to the workmen direct. The Jamadars deducted Rupee one per day per worker" as their commission, so that the workers received less than the minimum wage; women were paid less than men; children below fourteen were employed; and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 were not observed. Bhagwati and Baharul Islam JJ. heard the petition.

1. Can an organisation move the Court under Article 32 on behalf of workers whose rights are violated?
2. Does Article 23 apply against private contractors, and does payment below the minimum wage amount to "forced labour"?
3. Does Article 24 apply to construction work when the statute does not list it as hazardous?

Standing. The Court accepted the petition on behalf of the workers, who could not themselves approach it, and treated the breach of labour laws as a violation of fundamental rights that the Court could enforce.

Article 23 binds everyone. "Article 23 is not limited in its application against the State but it prohibits "traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour" practised by anyone else. The prohibition against "traffic in human being and begar and other similar forms of forced labour" is clearly intended to be a general prohibition, total in its effect and all pervasive in its range and it is enforceable not only against the State but also against any other person indulging in any such practice."

Force includes economic compulsion. A person offered less than the minimum wage "would be in no position to bargain with the employer; he would have to accept what is offered to him. And in doing so he would be acting not as a free agent with a choice between alternatives but under the compulsion of economic circumstances and the labour of service provided by him would be clearly 'forced labour'. The word 'forced' should not be read in a narrow and restricted manner so as to be confined only to physical or legal 'force'". Where a person provides labour for less than the minimum wage, the labour is forced labour within Article 23 and the Court may direct payment of the minimum wage.

Article 24 operates of its own force. Article 24 "is a constitutional prohibition which, even if not followed up by appropriate legislation, must operate propiro vigore and construction work being plainly and indubitably a hazardous employment, it is clear that by reason of this Constitutional prohibition, no child below the age of 14 years can be allowed to be engaged in construction work. Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of specification of construction industry in the Schedule to the Employment of Children Act 1938, no child below the age of 14 years can be employed in construction work". The Article "is plainly and indubitably enforceable against every one", and the Union, the Delhi Administration and the Development Authority were bound to ensure that their contractors obeyed it and the labour laws.

Article 23 is a general prohibition enforceable against private persons; "forced labour" includes labour given under the compulsion of economic circumstances, so that work for less than the minimum wage is forced labour; Article 24 needs no statute and forbids the employment of a child under fourteen in construction, which is hazardous. The State that commissions work through contractors must see that the constitutional prohibitions are obeyed.

Sanjit Roy v State of Rajasthan (1983) applied the reasoning to famine-relief work; Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) to bonded labourers in stone quarries; M.C. Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu (1996) to the Sivakasi match factories.