Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 73975 (PNJ)

SATBIR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CRWP/7026/2025 · 2025-07-02

N S Shekhawat

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2025.07.03 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRWP-7026-2025 -2- 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.” 4. In view of the above referred judicial precedent, this Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Kaithal 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 two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. 5. A copy of this order be supplied to learned State counsel and be also sent to respondent No.2–District Magistrate, Kaithal for ensuring requisite compliance. (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) 02.07.2025 JUDGE mks Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO Whether Reportable: YES / NO MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2025.07.03 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh