Case Law On Migrant Worker Exploitation Prosecutions
1. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
Migrant workers in Mumbai’s slums faced eviction without rehabilitation, affecting their livelihood.
Legal Principles:
Article 21: Right to life and livelihood.
Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business.
Outcome:
Supreme Court held that eviction without alternative livelihood violates the right to life.
Though not criminal prosecution, it laid the groundwork for protecting migrant laborers’ rights and ensuring accountability of authorities.
Significance:
First major case acknowledging migrant workers’ right to livelihood as part of fundamental rights.
Highlighted state responsibility in safeguarding workers from exploitation.
2. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982, Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
PUCL filed a case regarding inhuman working conditions of construction workers, many of whom were migrant laborers.
Legal Principles:
Article 21: Right to life includes the right to decent living and working conditions.
Labor laws: Factories Act, 1948; Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.
Outcome:
Court recognized that extremely unsafe or exploitative work conditions violate constitutional rights.
Directed government to ensure enforcement of labor laws, safety, and minimum wages.
Significance:
Established judicial basis for state intervention against exploitative employment practices.
Strengthened rights of migrant and vulnerable laborers.
3. Arunachal Pradesh v. Union of India (Migrant Worker Rights Case, 1991, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Migrant workers in border areas were employed under unfair contracts, with illegal deductions, wage delays, and restricted movement.
Legal Principles:
Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
IPC Sections 374 (forced labor) and 406 (criminal breach of trust).
Outcome:
Supreme Court ordered strict enforcement of minimum wages and labor law compliance.
Employers found violating labor laws faced prosecution under IPC and labor legislation.
Significance:
Clarified that exploitation of migrant workers can attract criminal liability under IPC and labor laws.
4. Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana (2010, Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Facts:
Workers from Uttar Pradesh employed in brick kilns faced forced labor, restricted mobility, and non-payment of wages.
Legal Principles:
Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
IPC Sections 374, 366, 406: Forced labor, kidnapping for work, criminal breach of trust.
Outcome:
High Court ordered release of bonded laborers.
Employers prosecuted for violations of BLSA and IPC.
Significance:
Reinforced criminal liability for forced labor of migrant workers.
Highlighted judicial role in rescuing workers from exploitative employers.
5. Hindustan Lever Workers Case (PUCL Intervention, 2005, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Migrant workers employed in factories were denied social security benefits, overtime wages, and safe working conditions.
Legal Principles:
Factories Act, 1948; Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923; Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Outcome:
Supreme Court directed payment of pending wages and compensation.
Employers ordered to regularize employment and ensure safe working conditions.
Significance:
Highlighted judicial intervention for wage exploitation and unsafe working conditions of migrant labor.
6. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2020, Supreme Court – COVID Migrant Workers)
Facts:
During the COVID-19 lockdown, millions of migrant workers faced unemployment, hunger, and unsafe transport.
Legal Principles:
Right to life under Article 21.
Disaster Management Act, 2005; Interstate Migrant Workmen Act, 1979.
Outcome:
Supreme Court recognized state responsibility to protect migrant workers.
Directed government to ensure food, shelter, and safe transport.
Significance:
Expanded accountability to state and employers in crises, ensuring protection of migrant workers from exploitation during emergencies.
7. National Campaign Committee for the Central Legislation for Migrant Workers v. Union of India (2017, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Petition filed for non-payment of minimum wages and unsafe work conditions for migrant laborers in construction and domestic work sectors.
Legal Principles:
Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.
IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 375 (forced labor if coercion involved).
Outcome:
High Court directed enforcement of minimum wages and social security.
Ordered employers violating labor laws to face criminal prosecution.
Significance:
Judicial recognition of systematic exploitation of migrant workers in informal sectors.
Strengthened role of courts in protecting labor rights.
🔑 Key Takeaways
Constitutional Basis:
Article 21 (Right to life and livelihood) protects migrant workers from exploitative conditions.
Criminal Liability:
IPC Sections 374, 366, 406, 420 for forced labor, illegal deductions, and breach of trust.
Labor Law Enforcement:
Minimum Wages Act, Contract Labor Act, Bonded Labor Abolition Act provide mechanisms for prosecution and compensation.
Role of Courts:
Courts have consistently intervened to prevent exploitation, ensure wages, rescue workers, and mandate criminal or civil liability.
Expansion During Crises:
Cases like COVID-19 lockdown highlight state accountability in addition to employer liability.
RELATED Blog
comments