- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bandhua Mukti Morcha Petitioner: v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion arises in a pending writ petition concerning child labour in the carpet manufacturing industry in Uttar Pradesh. By an earlier order dated August 18, 1986, the Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to file lists containing particulars of criminal cases filed against carpet manufacturers and pending trial, within four days. The State was also expected to put forward a scheme for rehabilitation of children employed in the industry, and an assurance was given to the Court that the needful would be done within a short time. As of the present order, the State had not complied with these directions.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted continued non-compliance by the State Government with the Court's prior directions, despite a clear time-bound order and an assurance of prompt action. The Court characterized the failure as a blatant flouting of its orders and expressed concern that the State appeared disinterested in eliminating child labour in the carpet manufacturing industry, even though such child labour is stated to be prohibited under the Employment of Children Act, 1938. The Court also emphasized the State's failure to address rehabilitation of affected children. Given these circumstances, the Court decided to provide a final opportunity for compliance while requiring accountability through the personal presence of a senior official.
Holding and Implications
ADJOURNED WITH DIRECTIONS: The writ petition was adjourned to September 29, 1986, and the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Labour Department was directed to remain present in court at 10:30 a.m. to answer why the Court's directions had not been carried out.
The immediate effect is to compel an explanation for non-compliance and to press the State to file the required lists and present a rehabilitation scheme. The opinion does not indicate any broader legal implications or creation of new precedent beyond enforcing compliance in the pending writ proceedings.
We find that the State of Uttar Pradesh has not yet filed the lists setting out the particulars of the criminal cases which have been filed against the carpet manufacturers and are pending trial in the courts, even though the State Government was directed to do so within four days from the date of our order dated August 18, 1986. The State Government has also not put forward any scheme for rehabilitation of the children employed in the carpet manufacturing industry. We have directed the State Government to do so and an assurance was given to us that the needful will be done by the State Government within a short time. It is a matter of regret that the orders made by this Court should be blatantly flouted by the State Government. It looks as if the State Government is not interested at all in eliminating child labour in the carpet manufacturing industry though the said child labour is prohibited under the Employment of Children Act, 1938, nor does the State Government seem be interested in providing for the rehabilitation of the said children. We would give one final opportunity to the State Government and adjourn the writ petition to September 29, 1986 and direct the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Labour Department to remain present in court at 10.30 a.m to answer why the directions given by that Court have not yet been carried out.
Court Master
Alert