Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1376 (HP)

Randeep Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-10-08

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against order dated 3.7.2013 rendered by District Magistrate, Sirmaur in case No. 1/2013. 2. ?Key facts? necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.3 moved an application before respondent No.2 regarding bonded labourer and wages on 6.4.2013. Respondent No. 2 ordered immediate inquiry to be conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrah vide office order dated 6.4.2013. He also directed to associate Station House Officer, Sangrah and District Labour Officer in the inquiry. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrah submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Sirmaur. The District Magistrate, Sirmaur, on the basis of documents and evidence placed on the file and the opinion of the NHRC given in various instructions, concluded that there were sufficient evidence on record to establish that respondent No. 3 has been a bonded labourer of the petitioner, as defined in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and the debt due from respondent No.3 was a bonded debt. Respondent No.3 was certified as a bonded labour. She was ordered to be released from bondage and declared that debt of Rs. 73,000/- given by the petitioner as bonded debt shall stand extinguished vide impugned order. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.7.2013. 3. Respondent No.3 has levelled the following three accusations against the petitioner: 1. Randeep Singh has kept Smt. Kubja Devi, her late husband Jiwnoo and other family members as bonded labourers. 2. Randeep Singh used to abuse and threaten to do away with the life of Smt. Kubja Devi, her sons and daughter-in-law. 3. On the complaint of Randeep Singh, concerned Department stopped the pension of Smt. Kubja Devi. 4. Statements of Kubja Devi, her son Dharampal, her daughter-in-law Kaushalya, Sant Ram and Randeep Singh were recorded on 8.4.2013. Both the parties were given ample opportunities to produce their witnesses and to lead evidence. 5. Respondent No. 3 in her statement made before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrah has deposed that earlier her husband and she worked for 5 years with the petitioner. She lost her husband in the year 2003. They were just provided with food for the work they used to do for the petitioner. They worked for another 5 years after the death of her husband with the petitioner. Her son Dharampal and daughter-in-law Kaushalya also worked with the petitioner. They were not paid any wages. She lost her husband in the year 2003. They were just provided with food for the work they used to do for the petitioner. They worked for another 5 years after the death of her husband with the petitioner. Her son Dharampal and daughter-in-law Kaushalya also worked with the petitioner. They were not paid any wages. They used to stay in the house of the petitioner. She left the house of the petitioner two years ago. She used to do agricultural work. 6. Version of respondent No.3 was supported by her son Dharampal. According to him, he was married to Kaushalya Devi about 15 years ago. He has 5 children. Even prior to his marriage they were just offered meals. However, no wages were paid to them. He had borrowed a sum of Rs.38,000/- from the petitioner. He has returned Rs.12,000/- in the year 2002. Thereafter, he returned Rs.6,000/- from the subsidy received under BPL Scheme in the year 2008. He was told in the year 2009 that a sum of Rs.73,000/- was due to the petitioner. He has also made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner to this effect. He worked with the petitioner with effect from 2002 to December, 2006. No agreement was executed between him and the petitioner. He used to work in the fields of petitioner. He used to work from 6 A.M. to 7 P.M. 7. Smt. Kaushalya Devi wife of Dharampal, has deposed that her marriage was solemnized with Dharampal about 15 years ago. She used to work in the house of the petitioner with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband. She used to work in the fields of the petitioner. She was offered only meals twice in the morning and evening. 8. Petitioner has deposed that he has never employed respondent No.3, her son Dharampal or daughter-in-law of respondent No. 3 and her husband late Jiwnoo. He has denied that Dharampal has taken a sum of Rs.38,000/- from him in the year 2002. He has never advanced a sum of Rs.38,000/- to the family of respondent No. 3. He had filed a case in the Court of Civil Judge, Rajgarh for the recovery of Rs. 73,000/-. The decree was passed on 31.8.2012. 9. Statements of Yashpal Singh and Tripta Devi were also recorded. They had no specific knowledge about the case. 10. He has never advanced a sum of Rs.38,000/- to the family of respondent No. 3. He had filed a case in the Court of Civil Judge, Rajgarh for the recovery of Rs. 73,000/-. The decree was passed on 31.8.2012. 9. Statements of Yashpal Singh and Tripta Devi were also recorded. They had no specific knowledge about the case. 10. Statement of Sant Ram was also recorded at the instance of respondent No. 3. According to him, respondent No. 3 and her husband used to work in the house of Randeep Singh. After the death of Jiwnoo, Dharampal and his wife used to work with the petitioner. 11. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrah on the basis of statements as discussed herein above, has concluded that respondent No. 3 and her family members used to work as bonded labourers with the petitioner till 2008. When petitioner filed a case against respondent No. 3, thereafter they started residing in their house and they were not bonded labourers as of now. 12. District Magistrate, on the basis of the report, has declared respondent No. 3 as a bonded labourer. According to him, respondent No. 3 was forced to work in lieu of advance / financial obligations. They were paid nominal wages. The debt of Rs.73,000/- given by the petitioner was declared to be bonded debt. It was ordered to be extinguished. The District Magistrate has passed the order after receiving the report from the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate has taken into consideration various mandatory provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 before passing the order. District Magistrate has rightly concluded that respondent No.3 was kept as bonded labourer and her son was also working as bonded labourer with the petitioner. Family members of respondent No.3 were advanced loan of Rs.38,000/- and later on petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.73,000/- from them and in lieu of that respondent No.3 and her family members were working for the petitioner as bonded labourers. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under section 25 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 in respect of any matter to which any provision of the Act applies. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the District Magistrate. 13. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under section 25 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 in respect of any matter to which any provision of the Act applies. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the District Magistrate. 13. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.