JUDGMENT 1. - In these Writ Petition, petitioners have challenged their termination on the ground that without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act their services have been terminated by the authorities. 2. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the petitioners have not completed 240 days. It was further submitted that they were serving under the Rural Landless Guarantee Programme, Minimum Needs Programme and National Rural Employment Programme. It was further submitted that the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply and the question of violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act') does not apply. 3. On behalf of the State, Additional Advocate General, Mr. M.I. Khan argued the case with all his vehemence at his command as usual. He was very fair in his arguments and represented the case law very well. 4. Laws now are not merely to maintain order or status-quo ante but are also used as effective (means) for bringing about socio-economic changes in the existing system. Ordinarily, it was considered that law is a set of rules which are enforced by the State to regulate human conduct. Thus, the rules which a State recognises and enforces were considered to be the 'law'. 5. The States have adopted their role from mere law and order enforcing agency to a social welfare agency. In this changed role, laws are used for bringing about social change and for effecting redistributive justice. 6. We talk much about the words and phrase -poverty" and the poor". The trouble with the word - poverty" is that it is a passive word, suggesting a State of social affair which is to be confronted as best as they can by the State and Society and until then to be endured by those called "poor". The words 'poverty' and "poor" tend to normalise what ought to be centrally problematic. Mr. Upendra Bakshi in the Book "Law and Poverty" has rightly suggested that the words - poverty" and --poor" should be substituted by the words "impoverishment" and impoverished". Impoverishment is a dynamic process of public decision, in which it is considered, just, right and fair that some people may become or stay impoverished. Impoverishment of people is a matter conscious planning by those who are not impoverished. Ordinarily, the wearer of the shoe knows where the shoe pinches. Impoverishment is a dynamic process of public decision, in which it is considered, just, right and fair that some people may become or stay impoverished. Impoverishment of people is a matter conscious planning by those who are not impoverished. Ordinarily, the wearer of the shoe knows where the shoe pinches. A person who has faced poverty, who has remained poor, who has suffered the impoverishment, can better understand than the persons who are non poor and make decision. Result of their decision making may generally be to make or keep large number of others impoverished" with a few exceptions. A research about the high-ups and centre of power and influence, future of their kith and kins. will show that mostly the persons who command power and influence are succeeded by their sons, kith and kins in getting the same position or better position of command and influence. 7. Freedom is a grand word but, under the banner of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of trade, freedom of business, the toilers are robbed. Power and influence, modus operandi continues to reign to isolate the benefactors and beneficiaries because of the class distinction between "haves" and "have nots" inspite of the undertaking of social justice and commitment in the Constitution and beneficial legislation enacted by the Government from time to time. The gap between the "Prince" and "Pariah" has widened and number of people below poverty line-the minimum sustenance requirement have vastly increased and the rich has become richer and the poor has become poorer. Non-satisfaction, rising demands and aspirations have been generating resentment and frustration which are frightening and constitute the danger to the Indian democracy itself. The real cause may be lack of spirit in implementation of the benevolent legislation as most of the persons directed to implement are the same who were centre of power and influence and who had the approach of the haves. The real intention of the implementation of the beneficial legislation has been frustrated. 8. The learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Khan, appearing on behalf of the State, with all the vehemence at his command and with all fairness triad to put before the Court the law which has developed in the matter of the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. 8. The learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Khan, appearing on behalf of the State, with all the vehemence at his command and with all fairness triad to put before the Court the law which has developed in the matter of the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. He has also produced a book-let issued by the Government of India in the matter of providing employment under Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme. This is a very benevolent guarantee programme of employment adopted by the Government. Under this programme landless agricultural labourer gets a guarantee of employment to some extent. It provides that the persons who are below the poverty line should be given the preference in the matter of employment and, at least one person of the family should be given employment under this Guarantee Programme for at least 100 days in a year. This programme is a development programme for the construction of the roads, irrigation, development of hilly and desert areas for the protection and development of the forests. Thus, this programme presupposes that the employment will be given to the at least one member of the family of landless labourer. 9. One can understand the plight of the families of the landless labourers. Generally, the families are half starved, semi starved, below the poverty line and they are not in a position to get minimum requirements of life and living. They cannot think of a decent life for them at present. Similarly, the Government has introduced minimum needs programme which is equally a good programme for the persons who are struggling for the minimum needs of the life, are given employment in the said programme. The third scheme is National Rural Employment Programme. This is also a good scheme. These schemes of minimum need and rural landless employment are employment generating schemes and are only meant for the families of the down-trodden and semi starved families who are in real need of employment to live. These families cannot think of a decent living. The Government has rightly introduced these schemes like other ones. This is altogether a different matter to evaluate the implementation and application part of these schemes and the Court has nothing to do at the moment with the implementation and application part of the schemes. 10. The Preamble of the Constitution declares that, "WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA. The Government has rightly introduced these schemes like other ones. This is altogether a different matter to evaluate the implementation and application part of these schemes and the Court has nothing to do at the moment with the implementation and application part of the schemes. 10. The Preamble of the Constitution declares that, "WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA. having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens "JUSTICE, social, economic and political."11. Preamble of the Constitution is a guiding source in its interpretation and application.12. It will not be out of place here to mention that justice, social. economic and political finds first place in the Preamble and the words, liberty, equality, fraternity finds place in the Preamble subsequent to the word Justice. There cannot be liberty without justice, there cannot be equality without justice, there cannot be fraternity without justice. The participation of the down-trodden, voice of the impoverished, voting power of the persons who are facing impoverishment, have led to the passing of the number of beneficial legislations including a number of constitutional amendments. The word and phrase -socialist" was not originally in the Constitution of India at the time of the framing of the Constitution. The insertion of the word -Socialist" in the Preamble by the amendment of the Constitution enables the Court to interpret and apply the law and the schemes in a way which will fulfil the objects of the insertion of the word -socialist."13. Chapter-III of the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights empowers the Court to issue injunction restraining the Government or the State from interfering with the Fundamental Rights of the Citizens enumerated in Chapter-III of the Constitution of India. Chapter-IV of the Constitution of India directs the State to take positive steps to achieve objects laid down in Chapter-IV of the Constitution.14. It is the duty of the State to evaluate both in the matter of administration as well as in the making of laws. The Directive Principles of State Policy are enumerated in Chapter-IV of the Constitution. They embody the aims and objects of the State under the Constitution and direct the State to act as a welfare State and not a mere Police State. The Directive Principles of State Policy are enumerated in Chapter-IV of the Constitution. They embody the aims and objects of the State under the Constitution and direct the State to act as a welfare State and not a mere Police State. It is true that the Directive Principles are not enforceable in the Court at the initial stage and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of the individual. However, it has to be looked into by the Courts that in cases where once the Directive Principles have been enforced or implemented by the State then they become justiciable or not ? Any law enacted for the implementation of the directive principles when passed by the State Legislature may become fundamental law, basic law and may have the force of the law embodied in the Constitution itself. If any law is repealed leading in the avoidance of the objects laid down in the Constitution, Chapter-IV, then there may be a controversy whether the State has a power to repeal such law and to take away in toto the implementation part of the Directive Principles ? It may be equally good in the matter of the schemes implemented by the State to achieve the objects laid down in the Directive Principles of the Constitution of India. Article-37 provides that, the principles laid down in Chapter-IV are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply those principles. The word fundamental' denotes that it is the basic guideline and basic direction to the State that the principle should be applied in the governance of the country positively at the earliest. Article 38 of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic political and shall inform all the institutions of the national life. It further provides that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life. It further provides that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life. It further provides that the State shall strive to minimise inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocation. This is a direction to the State to strive to achieve, to secure and to protect the social order in which justice, social, economic and political will be a precondition. A downtrodden and a person who is a victim and impoverish needs social and economic justice and for that employment also. Half starved. semi starved find unemployed person needs the social, economic and political justice. "Justice" stands in priority over the other rights of liberty, equality, fraternity. Article 39 further directs the State that the economic system should not result in concentration of wealth means of production to the common detriment. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has also been enshrined in Article 39. Article 43 provides that all workers should get living wages. Thus, it also provides by implication about the conditions of employment.15. Article 47 provides that the State shall strive towards the raising of the nutrition and the standard of living of its people. Thus, it also requires employment to achieve the objects laid down in the preamble and directive principles which are guiding factors in the governance of the State.16. The objects cannot be achieved without proper implementation of the schemes relating to the generation of employment and continuation of the employment of those who are below the poverty line, who are down trodden and semi starved. It is true that Chapter-IV of the Constitution is not justiciable. It is equally true that with the aid of Chapter-III. Chapter-IV may become justiciable when it infringes the fundamental rights of the citizen. In this perspective, the question of the employment of the persons who have been appointed under Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme, Minimum Needs Programme and National Rural Employment Programme will have to be looked into. Under these programmes at least one member of the family of the down trodden is given employment. In this perspective, the question of the employment of the persons who have been appointed under Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme, Minimum Needs Programme and National Rural Employment Programme will have to be looked into. Under these programmes at least one member of the family of the down trodden is given employment. Every member of the family and family as a unit, has a right to live and the State has accepted by giving employment under these schemes that the families are below poverty line and semi starved and they need employment to live and to achieve this object, employment has been given at least to one member of their family. In such circumstances, the question which needs consideration by the Court is, whether Article 21 read with Article 23 of the Constitution can be invoked and whether the State can be directed to continue the persons employed under these schemes in employment may be on daily wages. With the aid of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether the directions can be issued in the matter of employment or in the matter of continuance in employment ? The objects laid down in Chapter-IV of the Constitution of India which are fundamental in nature in the matter of governance of the country, something can be done. With this background we will have to consider the submissions made by the Additional Advocate General.17. In the case of Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar and others ( AIR 1984 SC 1471 ) , wherein 38 families were residing in the disputed land by making certain structures under the leave and licence. Their Lordships held that "social or legal jurisprudence has shifted away from finespun, technicalities and abstract rules to recognition of human beings. Their Lordships further held that social justice is not foreign to legal justice and any direction can be given which is just and proper in the circumstances of each case. Their Lordships directed that the property be sold to the tenants or the licensees who were living in those premises."18. Their Lordships further held that social justice is not foreign to legal justice and any direction can be given which is just and proper in the circumstances of each case. Their Lordships directed that the property be sold to the tenants or the licensees who were living in those premises."18. In the case of Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of M. P. (AIR 1984 SC 1089) , their Lordships held as under:- "It is not enough merely to identify and release bonded labourers but it is equally, perhaps more important that after identification and release they must be rehabilitated because without rehabilitation, they would be driven by poverty, helplessness and despair into serfdom once again. Poverty and destitution are almost perennial features of Indian rural IT, for large number of unfortunate ill-starred humans in this country and it would be nothing short of cruelty and heartlessness to identify and release bonded labourers merely to throw them at the mercy of the existing social and economic system which denies to them even the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothing. It is the plainest requirement of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution that bonded labourers must be identified and released and, on release, they must be suitably rehabilitated." 19. In the case of Olga Tellis and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others ( AIR 1986 SC 180 ) . their Lordships held that, "the huts constructed by them on the pavements cannot be demolished because of their right to livelihood which is comprehended within the fundamental right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution." Their Lordship., were of the view that merely because an undertaking was given before the High Court in writ proceedings on behalf of the hut and pavement dwellers, the right to live under Article 21 cannot be taken away.20. Their Lordships further held that the right to live includes the right to livelihood. The sweep of the right to live conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that the life cannot be extinguished or taken away except according to the procedure established by law. An equally important facet of law is right to live. Because, no person can live without the means of living, i.e. means of livelihood. Right to livelihood is not treated as part of the constitutional right to live. It does not mean merely that the life cannot be extinguished or taken away except according to the procedure established by law. An equally important facet of law is right to live. Because, no person can live without the means of living, i.e. means of livelihood. Right to livelihood is not treated as part of the constitutional right to live. The easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of hi., means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective contents and meaningfulness.21. In the case of G. Govinda Rajulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corp. Ltd. and another ( AIR 1987 SC 1801 ) , their Lordships directed that the employees of the Corporation whose services were sought to be terminated on account of closure of the Corporation shall he continued in service on the same terms and conditions either in the Government Departments or in the Government Corporations. Thus, their Lordships accepted the right of continuation in the employment.22. Their Lordships while considering the case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan ( AIR 1983 SC 803 ) . held that providing for the payment of subsistance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1/- per month is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution. Public employment opportunity is a national wealth in which all citizens are equally entitled to share and the persons who are below the poverty line can claim a preferential treatment so that they can be equal with those who are better placed economically. Thus, the right to employment has also been considered as a fundamental right.23. In the case of Bandhuwa Mukti Morcha v. Union of India ( AIR 1984 SC 802 ) . Hon'ble Supreme Court had the opportunity to deal with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution. Their Lordships held that Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity free from exploitation. The State is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. The State is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. Their Lordships were of the view that the labour laws enacted by the Parliament for the purpose of securing the workman a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the Directive Principles of State Policy. Thus, the Court directed that the Government is bound to ensure various social welfare and labour laws enacted by the Parliament.24. In the case of Sanjit Roy v. The State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1983 SC 328 ) , their Lordships held that excluding the applicability of Minimum Wages Act, in relation to a workman employed in famine relief work is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution.25. On behalf of the State Mr. Khan invited our attention to the case Madhav Mayawadanrao Honkot v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1978 SC 1548 ) . This case relates to the personal liberty of the convict citizen. Their Lordships held that Article 39-A of the Constitution is imperative tool for Article 21. Their Lordships further held that when there is no statutory law and other situation exists then the Court can direct the State under Article 21 of the Constitution.26. Mr. Khan, has cited before us the case of Shri Dwarka Nath Tewari and others v. The State of Bihar & others ( AIR 1959 SC 249 ) . Their Lordships held that the administrative order or rule which is not based on statutory authority or other authority cannot be used for the purpose of issuing a direction to the State to continue the petitioners in employment.27. In the case of A. V. Nachana and another v. Union of India and another ( AIR 1982 SC 1126 ) . their Lordships were considering the (10-A) case of Sant Ram ( AIR 1960 SC 932 ). Their Lordships further held that Article 21 cannot be invoked to include livelihood.28. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the case of Sant Ram (supra). it has already been considered that the right of employment does not fall within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution.29. Learned Addl. Their Lordships further held that Article 21 cannot be invoked to include livelihood.28. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the case of Sant Ram (supra). it has already been considered that the right of employment does not fall within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution.29. Learned Addl. Advocate General has cited before us the case of Keshavanand Bharti v. The State of Kerala ( AIR 1973 SC 1461 ) . He submitted that the basic structure of the Constitution is that the directive principles are directions for the governance of the country and they are not justiciable. He further submits that law does not include to a great extent the Constitutional amendments. We are not concerned about the amendments.30. We are concerned particularly with Chapter-IV of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of the Court to see whether the law or the executive action gives effect to the policy of the State towards securing the directive principles specified in Chapter-IV of the Constitution. It is further the duty of the Court to examine the pith and substance of the policy, the true nature and the character of law or the executive policy and also to see how it is designed and the subject matter dealt with by it together with its object and the scope.31. Can a welfare State think of the starvation, semi-starvation in the country. We the people of India are the citizens of a democratic republic, socialist republic, and every action of the State is for the welfare of the citizens. Our State is not a police State only to be ruled out representatives, may be in the Legislatures, may be in the Executives, are the real servants of the citizens and the citizens are the masters. It is the duty of the servant to see that the master does not feel inconvenience and is free to lead a decent and reasonable life. Persons employed in the Scheme particularly under the Minimum Need Programme and Rural Landless Employment Guarantees Scheme are the down-trodden people. We understand that the State may be short of funds and for that reason a provision has been made that at least one member of the family will be given employment on daily wages under these schemes. Persons employed in the Scheme particularly under the Minimum Need Programme and Rural Landless Employment Guarantees Scheme are the down-trodden people. We understand that the State may be short of funds and for that reason a provision has been made that at least one member of the family will be given employment on daily wages under these schemes. It is with this object that the schemes he been framed by the Central Government and the State Governments and they deserve the appreciation for the steps taken for the achievement of the object. The difficulty lies not with the framers or the thinkers, but in fact, with the persons who have been entrusted with the implementation or the application part of the scheme. To say that a person who is semi starved or is facing starvation will be thrown out after 100 days is against the spirit of the preamble of the Constitution and Chapter-IV of the Constitution. It is true that Chapter IV of the Constitution is not justiciable. It is also true that it cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of issuance of the directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution particularly the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi, father of the Constitution Dr. Ambedkar, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru guide and philosopher behind the Constitution had for that reason they have provided that under Article 21 of the Constitution that direction can be given in the matters of the right to live. The right to live includes the right to employment for the purpose of fighting with starvation or semi starvation. In such cases Industrial law does not come into picture at all. Law or no law is not the criteria, but the criteria is that any person who is starving or is under semi starvation mast be given employment by the State and failure of the State to do so compels the Court to issue directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.32. At the costs of repetition we will like to stress that the persons who were employed under the above said programmes were landless labourers or the persons who were not having the minimum required earning for their maintenance and the maintenance of the families. Right to live includes the right to livelihood. The sweep of the right to live conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. Right to live includes the right to livelihood. The sweep of the right to live conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. Depriving the petitioners from employment will lead to their starvation and serfdom. Article 21 comes into play. In such case the rehabilitation scheme will suffer if the State is allowed to discontinue their services. Petitioners were employed only for the purpose of rehabilitation so that they and their families can get the minimum requirements of life. For this reason we are of the view that these are the fit cases in which Article 21 should be applied. We are of the view that Article 21 of the Constitution comes into play and any person who has been employed under the Minimum Need Programme, under the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme, cannot be retrenched and cannot be thrown away by the State once he has been appointed. Apart from that, Article 311 of the Constitution also comes into play. A person appointed on daily wages is equally a civil servant and may not be thrown away out of employment without any reason particularly when Article 21 can be applied for the welfare of those persons. Taking note of all these discussions we are of the view that the persons who have not completed 240 days of service under Rural Landless Labour Employment Guarantee Programme or under Minimum Needs Programme of the Constitution, Industrial Law may not apply but Article. 21 will apply and the directions can be given to the State for continuing them in employment.33. In the result, the writ petitions are accepted. The Department is directed to continue those persons in employment who have been appointed under Minimum Need Programme and under Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programmes. We further direct that respondents will give some (sic same) benefit to the similarly situated persons though they have not approached this Court for the grant of any relief.No order as to costs.Petition accepted. *******