Case Law On Labor Violations In Construction And Domestic Work
I. Labor Violations in Construction Work
1. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456)
Facts:
The People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) filed a writ petition highlighting the exploitation of construction workers engaged in building projects for the Asian Games in Delhi. Workers were paid below minimum wages, denied weekly holidays, and forced to work in unsafe conditions.
Issues:
Whether such violations of labor laws amounted to a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Right against Forced Labor).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
Non-payment of minimum wages constitutes “forced labor” under Article 23 of the Constitution.
The state is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that labor laws are effectively enforced.
The Court directed the government to monitor compliance with the Minimum Wages Act, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, and Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act.
Significance:
This case expanded the scope of Article 23 and established that economic exploitation of workers amounts to forced labor, even without physical coercion.
2. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) 6 SCC 756 (Child Labor Case)
Facts:
The petitioner highlighted the employment of children in hazardous industries and construction sites, in violation of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
Issues:
Whether the employment of children in such hazardous work violated Articles 24 and 39(e) of the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court:
Prohibited the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous occupations, including construction.
Directed that if child laborers were employed, the employer must pay compensation of ₹20,000 per child.
Ordered the creation of a Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund.
Significance:
This case strengthened the prohibition of child labor and made employers financially responsible for its eradication.
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67)
Facts:
The NGO “Bandhua Mukti Morcha” brought a public interest litigation highlighting bonded laborers working in stone quarries and construction sites in Haryana under inhumane conditions.
Issues:
Whether bonded and forced labor in construction violated fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 23.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
Bonded labor, resulting from economic compulsion, violates Articles 21 and 23.
Directed the government to identify, release, and rehabilitate all bonded laborers.
Emphasized that the right to live with dignity includes humane working conditions and fair remuneration.
Significance:
This case marked a turning point in judicial activism for labor rights and social justice, ensuring that fundamental rights apply even to the poorest workers.
4. National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 607
Facts:
The petition challenged the poor implementation of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and Cess Act, 1996. Large funds collected for welfare of construction workers were unutilized.
Issues:
Whether failure to implement welfare provisions amounted to a denial of statutory and constitutional rights.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court:
Directed strict implementation of the Acts.
Noted that over ₹37,000 crore was collected as welfare cess, but only a fraction was used.
Ordered creation of mechanisms for registration of workers and disbursal of welfare benefits.
Significance:
The Court reinforced accountability and welfare implementation for construction workers, ensuring that welfare funds actually reach them.
II. Labor Violations in Domestic Work
5. Smt. Lalitha v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court, 2001)
Facts:
A domestic worker suffered physical abuse and was denied wages by her employer. The case was taken up under human rights and labor welfare grounds.
Issues:
Whether domestic workers are entitled to protection under labor laws and minimum wage legislation.
Judgment:
The Madras High Court held that:
Domestic workers fall within the definition of “employees” under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 once notified by the State.
Physical abuse or denial of wages violates both labor rights and Article 21 (Right to Life with dignity).
Significance:
The case recognized domestic workers as legitimate laborers entitled to state protection and minimum wages.
6. National Domestic Workers Welfare Trust v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2011)
Facts:
The petition sought recognition of domestic work as formal employment, with social security benefits and legal protection.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court emphasized:
Domestic workers are one of the most vulnerable and unregulated labor sectors.
Directed the government to extend social security schemes and minimum wage protections under the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008.
Significance:
This judgment pushed the government to formally recognize domestic workers as part of the unorganized labor sector, entitling them to welfare and social benefits.
7. Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983 AIR 328, 1983 SCR (2) 271)
Facts:
Workers engaged in construction of roads during drought relief work were paid less than minimum wages. The state argued it was a relief program, not employment.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
Payment of wages below the statutory minimum constitutes forced labor under Article 23.
The state cannot justify paying less by labeling work as “relief work.”
Significance:
This case made it clear that minimum wages are non-negotiable, even in government relief or welfare programs.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| PUDR v. Union of India | Exploitation of construction workers | Non-payment of minimum wage = Forced labor (Art. 23) |
| Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI | Bonded labor in construction | Right to life includes right to dignified working conditions |
| M.C. Mehta v. State of TN | Child labor in construction | Ban on hazardous work for children |
| NCCCL v. UOI | Non-implementation of welfare schemes | Accountability for welfare of construction workers |
| Smt. Lalitha v. State of TN | Rights of domestic workers | Domestic workers covered by Minimum Wages Act |
| National Domestic Workers Welfare Trust v. UOI | Legal recognition of domestic work | Social security for domestic workers |
| Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan | Underpayment in public works | Minimum wage is a fundamental right under Art. 23 |
RELATED Blog
comments