Satendra v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**** Date of Decision :26.06.2025 SATENDRA . . . . Petitioner Vs.
The State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents ****
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr.Aditya Partap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. (through Video Conferencing) **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus with request for appointment of a Warrant Officer to visit the spot and to get the detenues named in para No.2 of the petition released from illegal custody of respondents No.4 & 5.
2.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner (subsequently escaped) along with other detenues mentioned in para No.2 of the petition were contracted by respondents No. 4 & 5for manufacturing of raw bricks for the kiln, who are allegedly detained by respondents No. 4 & 5 against their wishes and consent as bonded labours and they are not being paid the agreed amount 3.
Notice of motion.
4.
At the asking of the Court, Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl. A.G. Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
-22025:PHHC: 076799 5.
It is apposite to refer to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 32 of 2013 Murti vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 11.01.2013, wherein it has been held as under:- "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.4 & 5 are being kept as bonded labourers. 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 Bonded 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 set aside / modify the order dated 9.1.
2013 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the petitioner's writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to treat this writ petition as a complaint under the 1976 Act 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 alongwith a copy of the writ petition." 6.
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and above referred judicial precedent, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 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
-22025:PHHC: 076799 of receipt of certified copy of this order along with a copy of this writ petition.
7.
A copy of this order be sent to respondent No.3 for ensuring requisite compliance.
26.06.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No