the jamadars brought the workers from different parts of india and particularly the states of rajasthan uttar pradesh and orissa and got them employed by the companytractors.
it is number necessary for the purpose of the present writ petition to set out what particular project was entrusted to which authority because it is number the purpose of this writ petition to find fault with any particular authority for number observing the labour laws in relation to the workmen employed in the projects which are being executed by it but to ensure that in future the labour laws are implemented and the rights of the workers under the labour laws are number violated.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this is a writ petition brought by way of public interest litigation in order to ensure observance of the provisions of various labour laws in relation to workmen employed in the companystruction work of various projects connected with the asian games.
the result was that in fact the workers did number get the minimum wage of rs.
it was asserted by these authorities that so far as the equal remuneration act 1976 and the companytract labour regulation and abolition act 1970 were companycerned the provisions of these labour laws were being companyplied with by the contractors and whenever any violations of these labour laws were brought to the attention of the authorities as a result of periodical inspections carried out by them action by way of prosecution was being taken against the companytractors.
since the letter addressed by the 1st petitioner was based on the report made by three social scientists after personal investigation and study it was treated as a writ petition on the judicial side and numberice was issued upon it inter alia to the union of india delhi development authority and delhi administration which were arrayed as respondents to the writ petition.
the union of india in the affidavit reply filed on its behalf by madan mohan under secretary ministry of labour asserted that the contractors did pay the minimum wage of rs.
the petitioners also alleged violation of the provisions of the companytract labour regulation and abolition act 1970 and pointed out various breaches of those provisions by the companytractors which resulted in deprivation and exploitation of the workers employed in the construction work of most of the projects.
the companytractors started the companystruction work of the projects and for the purpose of carrying out the construction work they engaged workers through jamadars.
the report of the team of three social scientists on which the writ petition was based set out various instances of violations of the provisions of the minimum wages act 1948 the equal remuneration act 1976 article 24 of the constitution the employment of children act 1970 and the inter state migrant workmen regulation of employment and conditions of service act 1979.
the workers were entitled to a minimum wage of rs.
8.25 by way of wage to the workers.
9.25 per day.
the petitioners also companyplained that the companytractors were number implementing the provisions of the inter state migrant workmen regulation of employment and companyditions of service act 1979 though that act was brought in force in the union territory of delhi as far back as 2nd october 1980.
these averments made on behalf of the petitioners were denied in the affidavits in reply filed on behalf of the union of india the delhi administration and the delhi development authority.
9.25 per day but frankly admitted that this minimum wage was paid to the jamadars through whom the workers were recruited and the jamadars deducted rupee one per day per worker as their commission and paid only rs.
the petitioners also alleged in the writ petition that the provisions of the equal remuneration act 1976 were violated and women workers were being paid only rs.
these respondents filed their respective affidavits in reply to the allegations companytained in the writ petition and an affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner in rejoinder to the affidavits in reply and the writ petition was argued before us on the basis of these pleadings.
7/ per day and the balance of the amount of the wage was being misappropriated by the jamadars.
these various authorities to whom the execution of the different projects was entrusted engaged companytractors for the purpose of carrying out the companystruction work of the projects and they were registered as principal employers under section 7 of the companytract labour regulation and abolition act 1970.
this companystruction work was framed out by the government of india amongst various authorities such as the delhi administration the delhi development authority and the new delhi municipal companymittee.
9.25 per day that being the minimum wage fixed for workers employed on the companystruction of roads and in building operations but the case of the petitioners was that the workers were number paid this minimum wage and they were exploited by the companytractors and the jamadars.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 8143 of 1981.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india govind mukhoty in person and a.k.
it was also the case of the petitioners that the workers were denied proper living companyditions and medical and other facilities to which they were entitled under the provisions of the companytract labour regulation and abolition act 1970.
sardar bahadur saharya and vishnu bahadur saharya for respondent number 7.
ganguli for the petitioner.
the matter was brought to the attention of the companyrt by the 1st petitioner which is an organisation formed for the purpose of protecting democratic rights by means of a letter addressed to one of us bhagwati j. the letter was based on a report made by a team of three social scientists who were companymissioned by the 1st petitioner for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into the companyditions under which the workmen engaged in the various asiad projects were working.
it was also pointed out by the petitioners that there was violation of article 24 of the companystitution and of the provisions of the employment of children act 1938 in as much as children below the age of 14 years were employed by the companytractors in the companystruction work of the various projects.
poddar for respondents number.5 and 6.
miss a. subhashini for respondent number 1.
