JUDGMENT : SURYA KANT, J. 1. The petitioner, who is proprietor of a brick kiln situated at Village Jatauli, Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal (Haryana), seeks quashing of the orders dated October 21, 2010 (Annexure P-12) and December 22, 2010 (Annexure P-15) passed by the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal has been directed to send an additional/complete reports in relation to the alleged violation by the petitioner of the provisions of (i) the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (in short the 1976 Act); (ii) Inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 (in short the 1979 Act) and (iii) the Minimum Wages Act 1948 (in short the 1948 Act). In order to appreciate the controversy, a brief reference to the facts may be made. 2. One Guddu Singh son of Babu Lal, resident of Village Nausa, Police Station Barla, District Aligarh (U.P.) moved a complaint dated January 5, 2009 (Annexure P-1) to the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission, inter alia, alleging that he alongwith his family members and co-villagers was employed by the petitioner as a labourer at his brick kiln named as "Jai Mata Di Brick Kiln." They were given an advance of Rs. 500/- each but no further payment was ever made, though each one of them rendered work worth Rs. 4000-5000/- and when they demanded the due payment, the petitioner and his associates not only abused and gave them beatings but also humiliated their ladies. The complainant further alleged that the brick kiln owner had also threatened them not to leave the brick kiln for 2-4 years and since they were kept as 'bonded labourers', the Commission should intervene and get them released from the clutches of the brick kiln owner and his henchmen. 3. The Commission immediately vide memo dated January 29, 2009 (Annexure P-2) forwarded the above-stated complaint to the District Magistrate, Palwal, with a direction to take appropriate action and submit the action taken report within two weeks. 4. 3. The Commission immediately vide memo dated January 29, 2009 (Annexure P-2) forwarded the above-stated complaint to the District Magistrate, Palwal, with a direction to take appropriate action and submit the action taken report within two weeks. 4. The District Administration swung into the action and a Multi-members Officers' Committee of the District Administration jointly inspected the brick kiln where the statement of the complainant Guddu Singh son of Babu Lal, that there was in fact a dispute between two families of the labourers which has been amicably settled and they have now decided to go home of their own free will and that they have no complaint against the brick kiln owner, was also recorded. The Inspection Team also made enquiries from the other labourers working at the brick kiln and they too deposed on the same lines. The Inspection Team submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal concluding that the allegations contained in the complaint made by Guddu Singh to the Commission could not be substantiated. The District Magistrate, Palwal sent the said report to the Commission vide memo dated February 25, 2009 (Annexure P-5). 5. The Commission, however, was dissatisfied with the above stated enquiry report and with reference to the contents of the complaint dated January 5, 2009 of Guddu Singh and of the enquiry report sent by the District Administration, it vide memo dated July 14, 2009 (Annexure P-6) reminded the District Magistrate, Palwal of his duties under Sections 10 and 12 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, and then observed that in the enquiry report, "there is no reference to the persuasion by Jamadars or the amount of advance or the rate fixed @ Rs. 220/- per one thousand bricks." The Commission also pointed out that if there was a dispute between the labourers then why a complaint against the brick kiln owner was made and if they were also being paid their wages and treated humanly, why seven of them left the work and went home? 220/- per one thousand bricks." The Commission also pointed out that if there was a dispute between the labourers then why a complaint against the brick kiln owner was made and if they were also being paid their wages and treated humanly, why seven of them left the work and went home? The Commission concluded that "the officers have not bothered to verify what amount was paid to them (the labourers) by way of wages or nominal wages as indicated in the Act and that it should be known to them that minimum wages or wages fixed by the competent authority were required to be paid and if not paid, it was breach of the provisions of the Act." The enquiry report was held to be an eye-wash. The Commission also questioned the silence of the report on whether the brick kiln was being run under a valid licence and permit? The District Magistrate was accordingly directed to make a proper enquiry and to collect the documentary evidence to satisfy that there was no breach of the provisions of the Act. The Additional/complete reports was/were directed to be submitted latest by August 13, 2009 for further consideration by the Commission. 6. In deference to the directive dated July 14, 2009 (Annexure P-6), the District Administration held a further enquiry and vide report dated March 31, 2009 (Annexure P-7), it was found that instead of seven, only six labourers had left the work and gone to their respective villages out of their free will due to an internal dispute between two families of the labourers and that each one of them was paid the due amount @ Rs. 218/- per one thousand bricks. The details of the payments made to two more labourers were also mentioned in the report. Besides this, a photocopy of the licence, of the brick kiln issued by the prescribed authority was also appended. The said report was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Palwal, to the Commission on August 10, 2009. 7. 218/- per one thousand bricks. The details of the payments made to two more labourers were also mentioned in the report. Besides this, a photocopy of the licence, of the brick kiln issued by the prescribed authority was also appended. The said report was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Palwal, to the Commission on August 10, 2009. 7. The second enquiry report sent by the District Administration also could not satisfy the Commission, who in turn, vide an order dated March 19, 2010 (Annexure P-9) directed the District Magistrate, Palwal "to make proper enquiry in view of the provisions contained under Bonded Labour Abolition Act and submit the report within eight weeks, failing which the Commission observed that it shall resort to Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993." It may be observed here that vide its letter dated March 19, 2010, the Commission was of the view that the second enquiry report revealed no fresh attempt to answer the queries raised by it in its previous communication. 8. The District Magistrate, Palwal, on receipt of the above-stated order dated March 19, 2010 (Annexure P-9), again directed the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hodal, to conduct a fresh fact finding enquiry and submit, the report. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Hodal, vide his report dated May 6, 2010 (Annexure P-10) informed the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal that in order to hold the third enquiry, letters-cum-notices were sent by registered post to the complainant and other labourers but none of them came present or joined the enquiry proceedings. The brick kiln owner, on asking, joined the enquiry proceedings and informed that there was never ever a dispute between him and the labourers and that the labourers who belonged to two different families, had some inter se dispute and when he came to know about it, he intervened and got the matter compromised. He also produced the records regarding payment of labour-charges as per the Government rates. The Enquiry Officer submitted that since none of the complainants, even after receipt of the registered letters, came forward to support the allegations and the records maintained by the brick kiln owner were found to be in order, no further enquiry in the matter was necessitated. He also produced the records regarding payment of labour-charges as per the Government rates. The Enquiry Officer submitted that since none of the complainants, even after receipt of the registered letters, came forward to support the allegations and the records maintained by the brick kiln owner were found to be in order, no further enquiry in the matter was necessitated. The Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, agreed with the third enquiry report and sent it vide memo dated May 11, 2010 (Annexure P-11) to the Commission explaining that the original records of the brick kiln regarding payment of dues to the labourers stood verified, the brick kiln was being run under a valid licence and the complainant or any of his associate-labourers have not come forward to substantiate the allegations. 9. Notwithstanding the third enquiry report exonerating the petitioner, the Commission, vide one of the impugned orders dated October 21, 2010 (Annexure P-12) observed that the brick kiln owner had failed to prove the payment of minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as neither the muster rolls required to be maintained nor the books of accounts were produced by him. The Commission was also of the view that the payment register was not maintained in the prescribed form and in the absence of these records, the District Magistrate ought to have presumed that the allegations made in the complaint were true and the complainant and his associates were kept as bonded labourers. The Commission directed as follows: ....In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal (Haryana) is directed to declare all the persons mentioned in the complaint as bonded labourers and issue them Release Certificates. He shall forward these certificates to the District Magistrate, Aligarh for their rehabilitation under intimation to the Commission. Response in four weeks. It is, therefore, requested that the additional/complete report as directed by the Commission in the matter be sent latest by January 20, 2010, for further consideration by the Commission..... 10. He shall forward these certificates to the District Magistrate, Aligarh for their rehabilitation under intimation to the Commission. Response in four weeks. It is, therefore, requested that the additional/complete report as directed by the Commission in the matter be sent latest by January 20, 2010, for further consideration by the Commission..... 10. The District Magistrate, Palwal, may be to save his skin and to ward-off the threat of prosecution given by the Commission in its previous communication, sent a letter dated November 22, 2010 (Annexure P-13) to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, requesting that "suitable prosecution be launched against the brick kiln owner of Jai Mata Brick Kiln, Jatoli, Palwal.........." and after compiling the contents of three enquiry reports sent already, he informed the Commission vide memo dated November 20, 2010 (Annexure P-14) that the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, had been requested to prosecute the brick kiln owner, namely, the petitioner, for his failure to adhere to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment & Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. 11. The Commission, it appears, continued to be dissatisfied with the afore-stated last report also and vide the second impugned order dated December 22, 2010 (Annexure P-15), expressed its displeasure regarding the manner in which the brick kiln was inspected or the fact finding report submitted without ascertaining the correctness or authentication of the wage slips or the books of accounts etc. The Commission observed that .....if the enquiries are not conducted immediately by the officer concerned and that amounts to nothing but frustrating the object of the Act. The philosophy of the Constitution, the intention of the Parliament in enacting and amending Labour Welfare Legislation and interpreted by Supreme Court that the denial of minimum wages tantamount to forced labour and infringement of Article 23 of the Constitution of India thus, affecting the provisions of Bonded Labour System, (Abolition) Act. In these circumstances, Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, Haryana is directed to declare all the persons mentioned in the complaint as bonded labourers and issue them Release Certificates. He shall forward these release certificates to the District Magistrate, Aligarh (UP) for their rehabilitation under intimation to the Commission. Response in four weeks.... 12. In these circumstances, Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, Haryana is directed to declare all the persons mentioned in the complaint as bonded labourers and issue them Release Certificates. He shall forward these release certificates to the District Magistrate, Aligarh (UP) for their rehabilitation under intimation to the Commission. Response in four weeks.... 12. In the penultimate paragraph of the second impugned order, the Commission directed the District Magistrate to submit the additional/complete reports as per the previous directions, latest by January 22, 2011 for further consideration. 13. The aggrieved petitioner-brick kiln owner, who has obviously been subjected to repeated enquiries by the District Administration at the instance of the Commission, has now approached this Court. 14. The District Magistrate, Palwal and the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Hodal, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, have filed their reply affidavits broadly admitting the facts noticed above and maintaining that ...there was no case of bonded labour and as a matter of fact there were some differences between the two groups of workers which was sorted out by the management of Jai Mata Di bricks kiln. The then Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) also found that the workers were being paid wages strictly in accordance with the minimum rate of wages fixed by the State Government which was Rs. 218/- per one thousand bricks. The management was also maintaining mandatory records regarding payment to the workers. The answering Respondent No. 3 informed to Respondent No. 1 that no release certificate could by issued in respect of the concerned workers as they were not bonded labourers.... 15. The reply-affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 further reveals that: ...The worker Gudu Singh had earlier lodged a complaint through Puran Singh S/o. Sh. Ganga Ram, resident of District Aligarh (U.P.) alleging himself as bonded labour and Additional District Magistrate, Firozabad (UP) had declared Gudu Singh as bonded labour which is filed in the Hon'ble Human Right commission as Case No. 35221/24/28/09-10/ BL/UC/M-3. Now, Sh. Gudu Singh has again filed complaint directly to respondent no. 1 alleging himself as bonded labour with a view to extract money from the state of Haryana under the rehabilitation scheme framed under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. This information has been received by the answering respondent form District Magistrate, Aligarh (UP) vide his Endst. Now, Sh. Gudu Singh has again filed complaint directly to respondent no. 1 alleging himself as bonded labour with a view to extract money from the state of Haryana under the rehabilitation scheme framed under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. This information has been received by the answering respondent form District Magistrate, Aligarh (UP) vide his Endst. Letter No. 465 dated January 22, 2011, a copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure R2/1. This document, therefore, clearly reveals the modus operandi of such workers... 16. The Commission has chosen not to file any reply, though its learned counsel has assisted us at the time of final hearing. 17. It goes without saying that the Commission has an onerous task of protecting and enforcing the most cherished and priceless rights known as "the human rights" especially of those who are poor, resource less and belong to the marginalized Sections of Society. The Commission is the statutory watch dog for the protection of the human rights of millions of downtrodden, most of whom are un-organized, scattered, ignorant of their basic rights and accept exploitation as a fait-accompli. The duty entrusted to the Commission for the protection and enforcement of human rights, some of which are embodied in our Constitution as fundamental rights also, is of paramount importance. We firmly believe that the National as well as the State Commissions have done a commendable job to achieve the aforesaid objects within the frame-work of the Human Rights Act, 1993. 18. It may also be true that the poor and illiterate workers are exploited to the hilt by their employers and the brick kiln owners are no exception. One of the most inhuman and barbaric method of exploitation of bonded labourers by the brick kiln owners was laudably hammered by the Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and Others, (1984) 3 SCC 161 and several subsequent orders passed therein including those Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and Others, (2000) 10 SCC 104 . Their Lordships in Public Union for Civil Liberties vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2004) 12 SCC 381, expanded the scope of a petition on the plight of migrant bonded labourers from Tamil Nadu who were being subjected to exploitation in Madhya Pradesh and assigned the task of monitoring the implementation of its directions for rehabilitation of those bonded labourers to the National Commission only. The Commission is, thus, a known and effective instrument, with or without the aid of the Constitutional Courts, for enforcement of the human rights in particular those guaranteed as 'fundamental rights' under Articles 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Constitution. 19. The pivotal and pro-active role of the Commission in expecting or ensuring a fact finding enquiry or the consequential action on receipt of a complaint alleging existence of bonded labourers and their exploitation by a brick kiln owner, in the instant case or otherwise, can not at all be faulted or excepted. A District Magistrate is also obligated to hold such like enquiry and take appropriate action under Sections 11 and 12 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Similarly, if on an enquiry or otherwise, it is proved, prima-facie, that there has been violation of the provisions of 1976 Act and resultant deprivation of the human rights, the prosecution of the wrong doer is a natural consequence which must follow without prejudice to the compensation that a victim may be entitled to. 20. There is, however, a hair-thin difference between prosecution and persecution of an alleged wrong doer. It is one of the finest principles of natural justice recognized worldwide that no person can be subjected to repeated punitive actions for his singular misconduct. The afore-stated protection popularly known as bar against double jeopardy, has been expressly included amongst the fundamental rights under our Constitution. The underlying object of this principle is that multiple subjection to an enquiry or trial in itself leads to grave harassment and amounts to playing with the liberty and dignity of one's life. The right to self-respect and lead a dignified life though cannot be unconditional and is always subject to the limitations prescribed by the penal laws, never-the-less it has been accepted as an essential part of the fundamental human rights jurisprudence. 21. The right to self-respect and lead a dignified life though cannot be unconditional and is always subject to the limitations prescribed by the penal laws, never-the-less it has been accepted as an essential part of the fundamental human rights jurisprudence. 21. While more than one fact-finding enquiry by or at the instance of a statutory body held in furtherance of the objects for which such Authority has been established, per-se cannot be termed as a cause of harassment to the subject of enquiry more-so when the subsequent or supplementary enquiries are meant to address the issues that were left out in the main or the first enquiry, but repeated enquiry on the same issue would stand on a different footing. Such like enquiries need not be seen through a narrow vision of causing harassment to an individual but their depraving and demoralizing impact on the Enquiry Officers is a much more bigger issue. No one can perhaps rule out the lacuna or deficiency in the first or subsequent, enquiries but it will be far fetched to denounce that every time the hidden object of the fact-finding enquiries was to shield someone not so important for the Enquiring Authority or it always wanted to keep the truth under the, carpet. 22. It cannot be over-looked in the case in hand that the complainant Guddu Singh son of Babu Lal in the very first opportunity, deposed, before the enquiry officer that he had no quarrel with the owner of the brick kiln and that the complaint was made under a misconception that the brick kiln owner was supporting the opposite group in the fight between two, families of the labourers. Guddu Singh or five of his associates who left the brick kiln, did not come forward to depose before the enquiry officer despite notices sent to them by registered post, nor did they send any other complaint to the Commission or other authorities accusing the brick kiln owner of procuring their statements before the enquiry officer at the first instance and/or otherwise threatening them. If Guddu Singh could sent a complaint to the Commission when he was allegedly in captivity as a bonded labourer, it appears strange as to why he did not come forward and support his complaint after he had left the brick kiln and gone to his village in District Aligarh (U.P.). If Guddu Singh could sent a complaint to the Commission when he was allegedly in captivity as a bonded labourer, it appears strange as to why he did not come forward and support his complaint after he had left the brick kiln and gone to his village in District Aligarh (U.P.). There appears to be no factual basis to draw an inference of violation of the provisions of the 1948 Act when the enquiring authority has thrice verified the original records and the exact amount paid to the labourer who had left the brick kiln. So far as the non-compliance of provisions of the 1979 Act is concerned, no such allegation was made either in the first compliant or subsequently. 23. Every order to be passed by a Statutory Authority must be preceded with an object to be achieved. The District Magistrate, Palwal had already obtained whatever records were there with the proprietor of the brick kiln and attached them alongwith his report. The complainant or his associate labourers did not support the compliant. The other labourers working at the brick kiln have made no complaint against the brick kiln owner. In these circumstances, even if a fourth or a fifth enquiry is held by the District Magistrate, no purpose is going to be achieved. It may be noticed here that the power to prosecute for one or the other violations of the welfare Statutes lies with the notified Inspector, namely, the Labour Commissioner, Haryana, to whom the District Magistrate, Palwal has already requested for such prosecution vide letter dated November 20, 2010 (Annexure P-14). If the prescribed authority decides to launch such prosecution, the matter shall otherwise be within the domain of the Court concerned whose findings shall be final and binding. The order passed by the Commission directing the additional enquiry or for submission of the so called complete enquiry report in our considered view, is an exercise in futility and would achieve nothing except causing further harassment to the petitioner who has been sufficiently subjected to such like fact finding enquiries in the past. 24. The order passed by the Commission directing the additional enquiry or for submission of the so called complete enquiry report in our considered view, is an exercise in futility and would achieve nothing except causing further harassment to the petitioner who has been sufficiently subjected to such like fact finding enquiries in the past. 24. For the reasons afore-stated and without expressing any views on the contents of the letter dated November 20, 2010 (Annexure P-14) or the action, if any taken thereupon, we are of the considered view that it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice, fair and just play in permitting yet another enquiry on the same issue, for it would lead to an unwanted inference as if such enquiries shall have to continue until the conclusion in a particular direction or choice is reached. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned orders dated October 21, 2010 (Annexure P-12) and December 22, 2010 (Annexure P-15).