Bajir v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on 20.04.2026 BAJIR . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Jaiveer S. Bali, Advocate, and Mr. Sandeep Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1.

Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to get detenues mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the petition, released from the illegal custody of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and detenues, namely Jasvir Kaur, Nikhil, Pargat, Rupchand alias Ravi, Pooja, Kritika, Pappu, Chhinder, Ajay, Rahul, Raju, Neelam, Vishnu, Krishan, Kanhiya, Kashi, Surender and Sahil (as mentioned in para No.4 of the petition), are being illegally confined by respondent Nos.4 and 5 at their brick kiln. It is submitted that the detenues were engaged by the said respondents for manufacturing kachha bricks on agreed wages; however, despite rendering services, they have not been paid their due remuneration and are being wrongfully restrained from leaving the premises. It is further contended that the respondents have subjected them to coercion, and have threatened them with force through hired musclemen. The continued detention is stated to be illegal, violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 21, 23 and 24 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the

provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that immediate directions be issued to rescue the detenues from the illegal custody of respondents No. 4 and 5 and to ensure his safe return to his native place. 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he will be satisfied in case respondent No.2, who is the competent authority in terms of Section 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1976') is directed to take decision in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Murti v. State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 32 of 2013, decided on 11.01.2013). The relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus: "It may be mentioned here that the allegations of the appellant in the writ petition are that the alleged detenues mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition who are working as labourers at the brick kiln of respondent Nos.5 to 7 are being kept as bonded labours.

There can indeed be no doubt that if a labourer has been detained as bonded labour, it amounts to an offence under Sections 16 & 17 of the Bounded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. We, however, clarify that the aforesaid observation does not mean that the allegations levelled by the appellant have been accepted. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, the District Magistrate is under statutory obligation to hold a fact finding enquiry as and when a complaint alleging violation of the provisions of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 is received. Since the appellant in the instant case has specifically averred that the persons mentioned in para No.3 of the writ petition have been detained as bonded labourers, we allow this appeal and setaside/modify the order dated 9.1.

one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition."

4.

A further reference is also made to the order passed in the case of Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CRWP No. 4666 of 2020, decided on 08.07.2020), which reads thus:

"Accordingly, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate, Fazilka to treat this petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and take immediate action in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition." 5.

In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Hansi, to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as raised in the instant petition and in case any substance in the allegations is found true, then to take appropriate action under the Act of 1976, in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with copy of the criminal writ petition. 6.

Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of in terms as aforesaid. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 20, 2026 Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No