Judical Action to end Bonded Labour - Human Rights Commission ...

Published by 

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan 

Aiwan-i-Jamhoor, 107-Tipu Block 

New Garden Town, Lahore-54600 

Tel: 35838341, 35883579, 35864994 Fax: 35883582 

Email: hrcp@hrcp-web.org 

Website: http:\\www.hrcp-web.org 

Printed by: UB Printers 

1 Mission Road, Lahore 

July 2011

Contents 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................i 

I. SC verdict in Darshan Masih case ........................................................................... 1 

II. Sindh High Court Opts for Tenancy Act ................................................................. 61 

III. HRCP grounds for appeal in Supreme Court......................................................... 77 

IV. SC judgment of 2008 on bonded labour ................................................................ 87 

V. Shariat Court upholds law on bonded labour....................................................... 103 

Appendices ........................................................................................................... 121

This book is dedicated to the memory of 

the late Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed 

who stood in various capacities for the eradication of bonded labour 

& 

to HRCPís Special Task Force, Hyderabad, and the large number of 

HRCP members and volunteers who have helped thousands of bonded 

labour families to win their right to freedom and dignity

Introduction 

I 

The judiciary has played a most significant role in the efforts aimed at eliminating the 

scourge of bonded labour that has been rampant in Pakistan for ages, the largest 

concentration of bonded labourers being found in the brick-kiln industry and in agriculture. 

The main features of bonded labour are that the whole family of a worker, including 

old men, women and small children, renders services to a brick-kiln owner or landlord for 

extremely low wages that are grossly inadequate for meeting its modest needs. Most of the 

workers have no shelter of their own and are thus obliged to stay close to the place of work 

in jhuggies on land provided by the employers, and this increases their dependence on brickkiln 

owners or landlords. Since wages are low the workers are obliged to borrow money from 

the employers to cover day-to-day expenses or to meet emergencies such as sickness, 

death or marriage in the family. Brick-kiln workers also need loans during the rainy season 

when brick-making is suspended for months on end. Although deductions for loans are 

regularly made from the workersí wages, the amount of the loan, called Peshgi (advance 

against wages), goes on increasing. A worker is not allowed to find another employment or 

residence unless he clears his debt. This is the essence of bondage and attempts to escape 

are foiled by force and the workers concerned can be harassed, beaten and tortured, often 

with the help of the police. They can also be implicated in false criminal cases. Under this 

vicious system women are doubly vulnerable. In addition to the exploitation of their labour 

they are also subjected to sexual abuse. Another factor of the bonded labourersí vulnerability 

is the fact that a vast majority of brick-kiln workers are Christians and in agriculture in Sindh 

they mostly belong to the backward non-Muslim castes. 1 

Since the system of peshgi/loans lies at the root of the plight of bonded labourers 

they are often described as debt-slaves. Whatever the phrase used in this debate the use of 

bonded labour is manifestly a slavery-like practice. 

1. For an understanding of the bonded labour system, see the reports appended to the Supreme Court judgment in 

Darshan Masih case below, the Survey of Bonded Labour by Ali Ercelwan and M. Nauman for Pakistan Institute of Labour 

and Research, Bonded Labour in Agriculture by Ali Karim for Human Rights Watch, and ILO publications, especially the 

Rapid Assessment Survey. 

--- i ---

The existence of bonded labour began to be noticed in any serious way during the 

Ayub regime (1958-1969) when the brick-kiln labour registered a sharp increase. Two factors 

seemed to have contributed to this development: firstly, a spurt in construction industry 

caused by increased economic growth, and, secondly, the displacement of agricultural 

labour as a result of the trend towards mechanisation of farming. Several initiatives taken by 

leftist political workers led to the formation of brick-kiln workersí unions in several parts of the 

country. All of them faced greater hardships than those experienced by trade unions in other 

areas. One reason was the utterly backward status of brick-kiln workers. They were almost 

all illiterate, belonged to the poorest and the marginalised sections of society, and had no 

tradition of voicing their grievances, or raising their heads, or even of appreciating the extent 

of their deprivation and misery. Most of them certainly had no idea of their rights. Another 

reason was the social and political clout of the brick-kiln owners. For instance, one of the 

most prominent defenders of the exploitation of brick-kiln labour at a major centre of the 

industry was a lawyer who was the district chief of one of the principal religio-political parties 

and his part in the exploitation of labour did not prevent his elevation as a judge of the high 

court. 

The discovery of bonded labour in agriculture, especially in Sindh, came later than 

the exploitation of brick-kiln labour became known. The economic plight of the masses in the 

later half of the Ayub decade and the popularity of the ìland for the tillerî slogan made it 

impossible to keep the bonded farm labour under covers. 

The route taken by those who chose to campaign against bonded labour was the 

same in both the brick-kiln and agriculture sectors, except for a private initiative taken in 

Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa to get debt-slaves freed by repaying the principal loan amount. 2 On the 

one hand they awakened the public to the ordeal of bonded labourers and, on the other, they 

tried to get bonded labourers set at liberty by courts of law. 

The state took a long time to realize the extent of bonded labour in the country and 

the gravity of the problems it posed not only to the workers concerned but also to society at 

large. This despite the fact that slavery and forced labour were prohibited in all of the stateís 

constitutions. 

Article 16 of the Constitution of 1956 said: ì16 (1) No person shall be held in slavery. 

(2) All forms of the forced labour are prohibited, but the State may require compulsory 

service for public purposes.î 3 When Ayub Khan was obliged to add a chapter on 

fundamental rights to the document adopted by him in his discretion, Article 3 in it said: ì3. 

Slavery and forced labour prohibited. (1) No person shall be held in slavery, and no law shall 

permit or in any way facilitate introduction in Pakistan of slavery in any form. (2) All forms of 

forced labour are prohibited. (3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to affect 

compulsory service ñ (a) by persons undergoing punishment for offences against any law, or 

(b) required by law for public purpose.î 4 

The bar to slavery and forced labour was strengthened in the Constitution of 1973, 

which said in Article 11: ì11. Slavery is non-existent and forbidden and no law shall permit or 

facilitate its introduction into Pakistan in any form. (2) All forms of forced labour and traffic in 

human beings are prohibited. (3) No child below the age of fourteen years shall be engaged 

in any factory or mine or other hazardous employment. (4) Nothing in this Article shall be 

deemed to affect compulsory service ñ (a) by any person undergoing punishment for an 

2. In the 1980s, a Mardan lawyer, Mian Hidayatullah, gained prominence for securing the release of bonded ëdehkansí 

through an organization, Anjuman-i-Dehkanan, that he had founded. He found many rural workers who had become 

bonded to their creditors for failure to pay loans, sometimes as small as 10 rupees. In some cases sons and grandsons 

(and their families) had worked as bonded labourers because a small loan taken by their fathers or grandfathers had not 

been repaid even though the original debtors had spent their lives as bonded workers. Mian Hidayatullahís method was 

that he collected money from philanthropists to pay back the bonded dehkhansí debt liabilities and get them freed. 

3. Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1956, Art 16. 

4. Article 3 of Ayubís basic law of 1962. 

--- ii ---

offence against any law; or (b) required by any law for public purpose. Provided that no 

compulsory service shall be of a cruel nature or incompatible with human dignity.î 5 

Besides, Pakistan inherited from the colonial government an obligation to implement 

the Anti-Slavery Convention. 

Yet, no laws were made to implement the constitutional guarantees against slavery, 

slavery-like practices and forced labour during the first 45 years of independence. Due 

attention was not paid even to the criminal law provisions introduced by the British to provide 

protection against illegal restraint and detention, such as sections 339 to 346 of the Penal 

Code and section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6 While these provisions embraced 

wrongful/illegal detention, they were not designed to address exploitation of labour. They 

were often invoked by political victims of stateís excesses, or in family matters, but their 

application to bonded labour began in the second half of the sixties when workersí unions, 

human rights activists and conscious citizens started appealing to courts for redress of 

bonded labourís grievances. These efforts yielded mixed results. In some cases the court set 

at liberty workers who affirmed before it the fact of illegal confinement/restraint and 

sometimes the court was not convinced of confinement being illegal. There were also 

instances when workers recovered by court bailiffs/police, under threat from owners/police or 

otherwise, denied their confinement, or when the workers freed by a court were recaptured 

by brick-kiln owners. 7 However, even where relief was available through the courts it meant 

only release from illegal detention and the issue of bonded labour was not touched. 

Against this background the significance of the Supreme Court judgment in Darshan 

Masih vs the State can easily be appreciated. In this case the court gave landmark decisions 

on both aspects of the problem ñ illegal detention of and restraints on workers and the issue 

of bonded labour. The case inspired the civil society initiative that led to the enactment of a 

law specific to bonded labour ñ the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1992. 8 The law 

was invoked to get bonded labourers released in both brick-kiln and agriculture sectors. But 

it did not end the brick-kiln ownersí and landlordsí efforts to protect and preserve the bonded 

labour system. While the brick-kiln owners resorted to a variety of means to circumvent the 

law the landlords used their political clout to resist enforcement of the Act 9 and also 

challenged the very application of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act to the bonded 

haris. The latter effort bore fruit when a division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad 

Bench, dismissed bonded labourersí plea for freedom under Sec 491 CrPC and ruled that 

the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act was not applicable to cases where haris were 

held in bondage on account of non-clearance of advance payments received from the 

landlords. 10 

5. Constitution of 1973, Article 11, still in force. While this Article has several good features the assertion that ëslavery is 

non-existentí has been found untenable. Besides, it sanctions labour in hazardous occupations by children of 14 years, a 

fact inconsistent with Pakistanís adherence to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Further, the sanction to penal 

servitude is obviously problematic and a throwback to ages gone by. 

6 PPC: Sec 339 and 341, wrongful restraint; Sec 340 and 342, wrongful confinement; Sec 343, wrongful confinement for 

three or more days; Sec 344, wrongful confinement for ten or more days; Sec 345, wrongful confinement of person for 

whose liberation writ has been issued; Sec 346, wrongful confinement in secret; CrPc Sec 491, power to issue directions 

of the nature of a Habeas Corpus. 

7. See reports by Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz and Ms Asma Jahangir appended to the judgment in Darshan Masih vs the 

State. 

8. The relevant bill was drafted by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) under the guidance of Justice (R) 

Dorab Patel and Ms Asma Jahangir, the then Chairperson and Secretary-General, respectively, of the commission, and 

moved in the Senate as a private memberís bill by Senator Iqbal Haider, an HRCP board member. The bill was moved 

during Ms Benazir Bhuttoís first term as Premier and it was passed by parliament during Mian Nawaz Sharifís first 

government, a rare instance of bipartisan support to a reform measure. 

9. The landlords had a strong lobby in the Sindh Assembly and also in the parliament to plead their case against the 

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. The organization of Sindh landlords ran a strong campaign to convince public 

opinion that the Act was a tool in the hands of anti-Pakistan elements who had hatched a conspiracy to ruin Sindhís 

economy. 

10. See the judgment below. 

--- iii ---

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) challenged the verdict of the 

Sindh High Court in the Supreme Court and the matter was decided by the Court in the last 

days of 2008. Meanwhile, a challenge to the Act of 1992 in the Federal Shariat Court failed. 

The judgment on the HRCP appeal marks the end of a phase in the struggle against bonded 

labour through judicial process. For that reason it has been considered appropriate to 

confine this account of the judiciaryís role in fighting the evil of bonded labour to the major 

verdicts from the one in the Darshan Masih case of 1989 to the Supreme Courtís decision in 

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan vs the Government of Pakistan towards the end of 

2008, a record of trail-blazing developments spanning nearly two decades. 

II 

The first judicial verdict in the present volume, in Darshan Masih v. the State, is 

important for more than one reason. It was the first 11 case of public interest litigation for the 

enforcement of fundamental rights and the Supreme Court offered a detailed rationale for 

exercising its powers under Article 184 of the constitution. The court made inquiries into the 

system of labourís employment at brick-kilns and the circumstances that had contributed to 

the consolidation of the bonded labour system. Eventually the court succeeded in securing 

an accord between the brick-kiln owners, the labourers and friends of the court and turned 

the agreement into its order. 

The case began on 30 July 1988 when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 

received during the summer vacations a telegram from Darshan Masih (Rehmatay) and 20 

others, including women and children, seeking the courtís help in saving them from recapture 

by brick-kiln owners after they had been set at liberty by a court. The telegram was marked 

to Justice Afzal Zullah, who was a member of the Supreme Court bench then holding its 

sittings at Lahore. 

Finding the matter fit for taking cognizance under Article 184 of the constitution the 

court sought the assistance of the bar and also sent an urgent letter to the Inspector-General 

of Police for the recovery of the workers who were alleged to have been held in detention by 

the brick-kiln owners. The collusion between the brick-kiln owners and the police became 

evident immediately as the courtís letter to the IG, instead of being complied with by the 

police, was shared with the brick-kiln owner concerned. The latter promptly filed a criminal 

case against 21 workers and 14 of them were arrested by the police. 

The court first addressed the matter of workers who were under police custody or 

under outside control. Some of the workers had been tortured. While the court could see the 

marks of torture on the bodies of two workers one of them was too terrified to name his 

tormentor and seemed to be suggesting that he had not been tortured. 

After the question of workersí detention had been settled the court took up the 

second matter at issue, namely, ìprevention of the bonded labour practices in the brick-kiln 

industryî. The court called for reports from the Punjab Advocate-General, the police, 

associations of workers and employers concerned, the Director of the Punjab Labour 

Welfare Department, the lawyer representing the Lahore High Court Bar Association 

(LHCBA), and a report on women and children working at brick-kilns. The court also directed 

ìthat in addition to the efforts being made to eradicate the malpractices in the field of labour 

employment in the brick-kiln industry, a system should be devised to avoid all 

grievances/complaints of the nature dealt with by the Supreme Court in this caseî. The court 

called for a meeting of the parties concerned under the chairmanship of the Advocate- 

General and in his absence, the Additional Advocate-General. 

11. PLD 1990, SC 513. 

--- iv ---

The reports submitted to the court in compliance with its directives, which have been 

appended to the judgment, throw considerable light on the plight of the bonded labour at 

brick-kilns. 

Report by Mr Khalil-ur-Rahman Ramday 

In his report, the Advocate-General, Mr Khalil-ur-Rahman Ramday, first described 

the working of a brick-kiln and the jobs performed by various categories of workers and then 

argued that the system of peshgi (advance payments against wages) ìappears to the root of 

almost all the evils in this industryî. His other findings were that the workersí wages needed 

to be rationalized, working conditions at brick-kilns needed to be brought at par with other 

industries and social security benefits extended to brick-kiln workers; child labour at brick-kiln 

had to be stopped forthwith and the workers needed to be protected against physical 

violence. 

His recommendations were: 

� A law should be made to abolish bonded labour not only in the brick-kiln industry 

but in all walks of life, to extinguish all peshgis and the rights and liabilities 

accruing thereform, and to make the giving and receiving of peshgi in future an 

offence. 

� Prohibition of child labour should be strictly enforced inter alia in the brick-kiln 

industry. 

� The relevant labour laws should be extended to the brick-kiln industry. 

� Supervisory committees should be set up at the tehsil level to ensure 

implementation. 

� A national commission should be set up to suggest further remedial measures 

not only for the brick-kiln industry but also for all other areas where labour is 

bonded. 

� The police should be instructed not to register cases against brick-kiln employers 

and employees without the permission of the district SP. 

Report by Mr Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate 

On behalf of the LHCBA, Mr Abdus Sattar Najam submitted two reports. In the first 

report, he informed the court of the bonded labour cases that had come up before the Lahore 

High Court earlier. In one case, the petitioner was Rehmat Masih. A court bailiff recovered 89 

detainees, some of whom had been brutally tortured. Justice Fazal Karim ordered their 

release. 

The fate of five other habeas corpus petitions was different. Justice Sheikh Riaz 

Ahmad assigned the task of inquiry to an Assistant Sub-inspector (ASI) of Police (instead of 

a court bailiff), who rejected the workersí allegation of detention. The judge accepted the 

ASIís version, blamed the workers for exploiting the courts and dismissed the habeas corpus 

petitions. 

Mr Najam prayed the court not to see the instant case as a single and isolated 

incident but to take it as part of a large legal and social problem of bonded labour that was 

particularly rampant in the brick-kiln industry and only long-term measures could solve it. 

He made two more points: first, that while the constitution prohibited bonded labour, 

punishment under penal laws was only one monthís imprisonment; secondly, the Factory Act 

was extended to the brick-kiln industry in 1971 but was not enforced. 

--- v ---

In his second report, Mr Najam recalled the report of a Martial Law team that had 

recommended prohibition of child labour at brick-kilns and certain relief measures. He then 

gave his findings after a meeting held under the courtís directive at the office of the 

Advocate-General. These were: 

� The brick-kiln owners had nothing to say when confronted with evidence of the 

ways peshgi amounts were inflated. 

� The brick-kiln ownersí main grievance was that the Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz had 

showed the workers the path to the courts. 

� No agreement between the employers and the employees was possible at the 

joint meeting. 

� Mr Najamís recommendations included a rise in labourís wages, abolition of the 

peshgi system, extension of medical facilities to the labour, due application of 

laws, and creation of housing facilities for the labour. 

Report by the workersí union (Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz) 

The President of the Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz (Mr Ihsanulah Khan) described the 

various jobs at the brick-kilns and the categories of workers, the system of employment slips 

and termination of employment, the evil of the peshgi system, the sexual abuse of women 

workers, the low wages, the history of court cases, and made the following demands: 

� The bonded labour system should be declared illegal and all advances cancelled. 

� Those engaged in the sale and purchase of labour (women, children and men) 

must be awarded extreme punishment. 

� Child labour should be banned. 

� Brick-kiln workers should be issued identity cards and enrolled as voters. 

� Brick-kiln workers should be provided housing and medical facilities. 

Report by Brick-kiln Ownersí Association 

The president of the association, Mr Shoaib Khan Niazi, said he had been asked to 

report on two points: i) regulation of wages; ii) recovery of amounts due from labourers. He 

denied the sale/transfer of workers indebted to employers and said that though the labourís 

wages had been fixed by the Minimum Wage Board, Punjab, it was paid at higher rates. The 

peshgi system had been established by workers and contractors by mutual agreement. It 

was being assailed for political purposes. The end of the peshgií system would be against 

the interest of the labour and the employers both. In his view the issue number one did not 

exist and the issue number two could be regulated in a reasonable manner. 

Report by the Director of Labour Welfare 

The report said the problems of bonded labour in the brick-kiln industry were caused 

by three factors. i) the peshgi system; ii) the role of middle-men; and iii) shortage of skilled 

labour. The labour laws could not be enforced at brick-kilns and inspection/fines had failed to 

check ìthe evils of a well-entrenched systemî. Under the peshgi system, labour was 

exchanged between employers and those who tried to escape were brought back ìby using 

coercive methodsî. The Jamadar (contractor) played a key role in the exploitation of labour. 

Professional labour leaders had made the labour aware of their exploitation and also of their 

rights. The department recommended that a new law on the subject should be drafted, 

advances should be written off, the role of the middle-man should be defined by law, and 

workers should be provided with houses. 

--- vi ---

Report by Mr Rafique Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate 

The report said skilled labour was considerably short of the demand and workers 

exploited this fact to force employers to accept their demands. Some professional middlemen 

(Jamadars) handled matters in their own interest. All this led to a deviation ñ the peshgi 

system ñ which was abused by both sides. The situation was also being exploited by the socalled 

labour leaders. It was suggested that institutions might be set up at the district and 

provincial levels with which all records of accords etc between employers and employees 

might be kept and all matters referred to these institutions for settlement. Neither the workers 

nor the employers should be represented by an outsider. A workers welfare fund should be 

created. 

Report on women and children in brick-kiln labour 

Ms Asma Jahangir, Advocate, in her report said: 

� Slavery and slavery-like practices result in exploitation as the victims are grossly 

abused. Like other constitutions in the world Pakistanís constitution prohibits 

forced labour. 

� Condition of children: About 60% of the child workers at brick-kilns are under 13; 

mortality rate is high; and children cannot leave the work site. Blindness is 

common; two out of 20 families have blind children who were not born blind; 

blindness among adults is 15 to 20%. Some brick-kiln owners insist on childrenís 

employment. No educational/medical facilities at any brick-kiln around Kasur and 

Lahore. Children are held as hostages and abused till their runaway 

parents/elders are recaptured. Children live in fear and witness violence meted 

out to their parents and their mental health is affected. 

� Condition of women: Women put in as much labour as men and they also do 

household work. Yet their labour is not recognized. Marriage of young girls is 

resisted as this would reduce the labour force. Women are forced to work 

throughout their pregnancy and are expected back at work a couple of days after 

the delivery. Some of the brick-kilns have become prostitution dens. Some 

owners have taken pathaira women in marriage and use them for immoral 

purposes. Quite a few girls have been abducted. Complaints of rape and 

parading women naked have been made. Some widows and abandoned women 

were sold to recover loans. Social welfare organizations have not helped the 

bonded labour. 

� Recommendations: The Supreme Court could lay down parameters for courts in 

habeas corpus cases. Recoveries should be made by bailiffs and not by the 

police. Where illegal detention is proved, courts should ask the police to register 

cases. Labour department should carry out regular inspections. Minimum wages 

should be fixed per head and not per family. 

Report by the Deputy-Superintendent of Police, Pattoki 

Mr Muhammad Ashraf, DSP, described the categories of workers employed at a 

brick-kiln and said: workers live at brick-kilns for their own good. Some shrewd workers 

create unrest amongst the labour. They have formed a union that misguides them. Some 

pathairas have started a bad practice; they take money from brick-kiln owners and when 

repayment is sought they go to another brick-kiln owner and repeat the trick and put the 

owners in difficulty. In one case a bailiff was reported to have recovered 89 detainees. ìIt 

seems, My Lord, apparently it is impossible to illegally confine so many persons at a brickkilnî. 

The owner of a brick-kiln filed an FIR and cases were registered against 21 labourers, 

--- vii ---

14 of them have been arrested. Some of them are absconding. ìThey will soon be hauled 

upî. Meanwhile a compromise has been reached. The labourers are free to work at the kiln. 

The court unhesitatingly described this report as a brief on behalf of brick-kiln 

owners. 

III 

The Supreme Court (Mr Justice Afzal Zullah) passed an interim order on August 17, 

1988 which was confirmed the next day. This did not end the controversies. Complaints were 

made by both sides. The labour wrongly assumed that all outstanding loans (peshgis) had 

been extinguished and the court made the president of the Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz to write a 

letter to all its members to remove the misunderstanding. 

The case was finally decided on March 15, 1989 when the following order was 

passed in terms of the agreement reached by the parties: 

ì(In the matter of Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Re: Bonded Labour in Brick 

Kiln Industry) 

ìMembers of both the parties in person and through their learned counsel have been 

heard in the above-noted case. The following agreement in principle has been reached and 

be made as the order/decision of the court:- 

ì(a) Past Peshgis: 

(i) It is to be made clear that past unreturned Peshgis given to the labourers by brickkiln 

industry owners are still outstanding against the labourers. The labourers are 

legally bound to return all such outstanding peshgis to the respective kiln industry 

owners. However, in case of denial of peaceful return of these Peshgis, the owners 

are authorized to recover the same by legal means i.e. through court decreesó 

cases to be decided expeditiously with effective notices to the labourers; but, they 

are no authorized to use unlawful means for the recoveries of such Peshgis, such as 

coercive methods or use of police. 

(a) Past Special Emergency Loans. A maximum of Rs. 5,000 per household granted to 

the labourers in the past, in the form of formal loans or grants for marriages, religious 

festivals, medicine/treatment and death ceremonies, by the owners (to the labourers) 

shall not be recoverable from them and shall be treated as donation. This concession 

shall only be available to those labourers who return and resume their work 

voluntarily. 

(b) Future Peshgis. Peshgis system in future is to be discontinued. Although in proper 

cases if a valid agreement on this point is reached between a labourer and a brickkiln 

owner, the latter shall give to the former an advance loan, which shall not be in 

any case more than seven daysí wages against a proper receipt in duplicate, copy of 

which shall be retained by both the parties. The payments/adjustments of which shall 

be made to the owners in easy installments as agreed by the parties. However, if a 

loan in this behalf is not settled/adjusted, no additional loan is to be advanced by the 

owner and if given that would be against the spirit of the agreement and would be at 

the risk of the owner. 

(c) Return to work. A notice/direction is to be issued to all the labourers to come for work 

and report to their respective Bhatta owners; who will give them assurance in writing 

that they will not use any coercive methods or use police force to bring them back or 

to retain them. However, in case a labourer does not want to come back or, having 

returned, wants to leave his work in the Bhatta of an existing owner, or to get job 

elsewhere, or in the Bhatta of another owner, he shall not be retained forcibly 

--- viii ---

provided he on application to be made to the concerned District Judge/Civil Judge 1 st 

Class, gets a certificate for the purpose. 

(d) Payment of Wages. Payment of wages shall have to be made to the labourers on 

daily/weekly/fortnightly/monthly basis as agreed upon between the labourer and 

Bhatta owner, regularly. No deductions are to be made from their wages; for the 

damage/losses to bricks caused on account of rain and it shall be borne by the 

Bhatta owners. 

(e) Jamadar/Jamadarni System. The existing Jamadar/Jamadarni system is to cease 

forthwith. All the labourers shall have direct dealing with their respective owners. No 

payments on behalf of the labourers shall be made to them nor 

recoverable/adjustable. 

(f) The owners shall not directly or indirectly ask or pressurize any labourer for 

employing the womenfolk or children. However, if the latter do so at their own risk 

and responsibility, no complaint shall then be made against the Bhatta owners in this 

behalf. The head of the household who employs any of their womenfolk against her 

wishes and/or children might in proper cases be proceeded againstî. 

Within a short time this judgment and the discussion on bonded labour during the 

hearings provided a basis for the drafting of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 

1992. 

SHC rules against bonded labour 

IV 

In the year 2000 the Sindh High Court, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad heard a number of 

petitions that sought the help of the court under Section 491 of CrPC to be freed of bondage 

to their landlords. At the same time several petitions were moved by landlords who 

contended that relations between haris and their landlord- employers were regulated under 

the Sindh Tenancy Act of 1950 and that the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act was not 

applicable to the bonded haris. HRCP applied for being made a party to the case and 

although this request was accepted its counsel was not heard. The court deliberated at 

length on the application of Section 491 Cr.PC in habeas corpus petitions against detention 

of haris by their landlords and held: i) in cases of allegations of illegal/improper detention by 

private parties the courts should strictly scrutinise facts before issuing notice to anyone 

accused of illegally detaining anyone; ii) the Sindh Tenancy Act needed to be brought 

uptodate; iii) that all disputes over loans secured by haris from landlords should be regulated 

strictly under the Tenancy Act; iv) the Mukhtiarkars should be obliged to maintain uptodate 

records of tenants and tenancies; v) disputes between tenants and landlords should be 

decided by judicial forums and not by Mukhtiarkars; vi) since alternative remedies were 

available in matters of detention under the PPC, CrPC and the Tenancy Act, a direct resort 

to courts under Section 491 CrPC was generally to be avoided. The workersí petitions were 

dismissed for being vexatious. 

This judgment of the Hyderabad Bench of the Sindh High Court caused a huge 

setback to the struggle of the bonded haris to win freedom and reclaim their basic rights. For 

years they had been able to secure relief through courts under the habeas corpus law. This 

process almost ceased in Sindh. The Hyderabad Bench of the Sindh High Court stopped 

entertaining any petition by a bonded labourer against his illegal detention. The landlords 

who had never concealed their resolve to wreck the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 

were obviously emboldened to continue the exploitation of the poor haris. 

Soon after the Sindh High Court judgment was announced in 2002 the Human Rights 

Commission of Pakistan moved the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against it. The main 

--- ix ---

grounds advanced in this petition were: i) the judgment was not based on the relevant laws 

or facts on record, nor had each case been examined; ii) the Bonded Labour System 

(Abolition) Act and the fact that its provisions overrode other laws had been ignored; iii) The 

Sindh Tenancy Act had been invoked without ascertaining whether a hari had been 

recognized as a tenant under it; iv) the court had erred by holding that efficacious and 

adequate alternative remedies were available to detainees; and v) the court had not drawn 

correct conclusions from the precedents quoted by it. 

Shariat Court upholds the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 

During 1992-93 eight petitions were filed in the Federal Shariat Court seeking a 

declaration that the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992, was contrary to the 

injunctions of Islam. The petitioners, who were brick-kiln owners, had assailed the definitions 

in the Act of ëbonded debtí, ëbonded labourí, bonded labourerí and ëbonded labour systemí. 

They also urged that sections 5 (all contracts/practice involving bonded labour to be void), 6 

(liability to repay bonded debt extinguished), 7 (bonded labourerís property to be freed from 

mortgage), 8 (creditor barred from accepting payment against extinguished debt), 11 

(punishment for enforcement of bonded labour) the court held that the impugned definitions 

in the Act were not violative of Islamic injunctions. On the contrary these definitions were 

intended to realize the lofty Islamic ideals. Similarly the impugned sections of the Act were 

not repugnant to Islam. The court, however, noted that the objectives of the Act had not been 

achieved. 

V 

The second Supreme Court verdict included in this volume was given on appeals by 

HRCP and two others against the decision of the Sindh High Court cited earlier. 

The court (Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed) observed that leave to appeal had been 

granted inter-alia to consider the ìexact scope of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 

1992 and its effect on the provisions of the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 and other lawsî. 

At the outset the court discussed the appellantsí contention that i) under sec 5 of the 

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act any contract requiring anyone to work as bonded 

labour would be void and under sec 6 any bonded debt that remained unsatisfied would 

stand extinguished; ii) that no obligation of a hari to work against his will, supposedly created 

under the Tenancy Act, would be valid in view of the over-riding effect of sec 3 of the Act of 

1992; and iii) the High Court had no justification for declining relief to a person in unlawful 

confinement. 

After examining the relevant sections of the Act of 1992 the court observed: ìIt is, 

therefore, evident that all contracts whereby a person agrees to render services without 

wages or for nominal wages, forfeits the freedom of employment or movement or forfeits the 

right to appropriate or sell, at market value, any of his property or product of his labour must 

be held to be void. To this extent the statute basically gives effect to the mandate of Article 

11 of the constitution, prohibiting forced labour, of Article 15, guaranteeing freedom of 

movement, and Article 23, guaranteeing the right to own and hold propertyî. 

That conclusion did not settle the question of the unsatisfied part of the bonded debt. 

On this point the court noted that the legislature had moved a step further than the verdict in 

the Darshan Masih case towards eliminating the ìabominable practice of bonded labourî. It 

had provided that from the date of commencement of the Act of 1992 all bonded debts stood 

extinguished, no proceedings will lie in any civil court/tribunal for the recovery of bonded debt 

and all such suits pending on the commencement day shall abate. The Act further laid down 

that acceptance of bonded debt after the commencement day would be punishable with 

imprisonment. 

--- x ---

While the fact that as a federal law the Act of 1992 prevailed over any provincial law 

was evident, the court examined the argument that the Sindh Tenancy Act of 1950 was not 

applicable to the two appellants, and expressed the view that ìin the absence of a finding as 

to the existence of a tenancy under the Sindh Tenancy Act the Bonded Labour System 

(Abolition) Act, 1992 would be fully applicable to the caseî. 

As for the question of conflict between the two laws under reference, the court made 

a detailed examination of the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, and came to the conclusion that 

ìthere could be no justification for forcing him (a tenant) to work against his will in flagrant 

violation of his fundamental rightsî. The plea that the High Court was wrong in assuming that 

every detenue was a permanent tenant of the respective landlord was accepted. 

Taking up the appellantsí argument that the High Court was required to examine 

each petition under Article 199 of the constitution and Section 491 of CrPC on merits, the 

court stressed the fact ìthat the writ of habeas corpus, which is of ancient origin, as 

distinguished from other prerogative writs, is one of right and not mere discretionî. The 

petitions could not be dismissed (by the High Court) on the ground that alternative remedies 

were available. The court rejected the attempt to make a distinction between private custody 

and public custody and quoted the Supreme Courtís observation in Abrar Hasan vs 

Federation ìthat even if a judge of the Supreme Court were to illegally confine his domestic 

servant for misbehaviour, a writ of habeas corpus would lie against himî. 

Finally, the court elaborated upon the powers of the judiciary under the Pakistan 

constitution and held that ìany form of restraint on liberty is actionable both under Article 199 

of the constitution and Section 491 CrPCî. 

This landmark verdict quashed quite a few arguments that were adopted by landlords 

to evade their responsibilities under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992, and 

perpetuate the exploitation of their workers as bonded labour. 

These judicial verdicts also ended the controversy that the bonded labour in 

agriculture had to be treated differently than those working at brick-kilns. 

In the first case (Darshan Masih vs State) the Supreme Court dealt with brick-kiln 

workers as they were the only petitioners. The reports by various friends of the court offered 

a fairly complete picture of the bonded labourís exploitation at brick-kilns. The authors of 

these reports did not fail to call for legislation and policies aimed at eliminating bonded labour 

in all spheres of life. 

The second Supreme Court decision was given in a case born out of agriculture 

workersí exploitation as bonded labour in Sindh. Neither in this judgment nor in the impugned 

Sindh High Court judgment the condition of bonded haris was discussed. 

The plight of these bonded haris began to attract public attention in the 1990s when 

HRCPís Special Task Force at Hyderabad discovered large bodies of bonded labourers at 

agricultural farms. Here too whole families were engaged in labour, wages were extremely 

low, a vicious system of peshgi was in force, and women/children were often subjected to 

sexual abuse. As in the case of brick-kiln labour the pesghi amount kept rising and the haris 

could never hope to pay it back. The bonded haris were not allowed to move away from their 

thatched jhuggies and force was used to restrain their movements. Many cases of labourers 

being kept in chains or confined to prison-like quarters came to light. Also widely reported 

were instances of bonded labour being bought by landlords, who needed extra labour, by 

paying the previous ëownerí the peshgi amount due from them. The labourers who escaped 

from the places of detention were captured, often with the help of the police or private 

militias, and tortured. 

When HRCP activists started securing the bonded harisí release through reports to 

the police and habeas corpus petitions, the landlords took the plea that the bonded haris 

--- xi ---

were tenants and as such subject to the tenancy laws. In reality they were not tenants under 

the law. At the same time the landowners used their political clout to oppose, malign and 

threaten activists working for the harisí freedom They also carried out a propaganda 

campaign in support of their contention that some people were plotting to ruin Sindhís 

farming economy. 

The landlord lobby was obviously overjoyed when the Sindh High Court (Hyderabad 

Bench) denied the bonded haris the benefit of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 

1992. While setting aside that judgment, Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed settled several issues. 

He ruled that except for regular tenants, that is, those whose tenancy terms had been 

recorded under the law, all bonded farm workers were entitled to relief under the Bonded 

Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1992, that the ëpeshgisí could not be recovered from 

bonded workers, and that their right to freedom from illegal detention could not be curtailed. 

In this way this judgment scotched all attempts to distinguish one category of bonded labour 

from another and made a ruling applicable to all cases of bonded labour. 

--- xii --- 

I. A. Rehman 

Editor 

Note: i) Except for situations where a particular expression had to be modified to avoid 

confusion, every attempt has been made to avoid tampering with the language of the court 

decisions and reports submitted to them. 

ii) The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan is aware of the need to improve the Bonded 

Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992, so as to make it more effective and will support appropriate 

reform proposals. Meanwhile, HRCP believes sincere efforts need to be made to enforce the 

existing law.

I 

SC verdict in Darshan Masih case 

� Workers liable to repay outstanding peshgis. 

� Emergency loans upto Rs 5,000 per family not recoverable from workers who 

resume duty. 

� No peshgi system in future. 

� Labour to return to work, employers not to use force to bring them back, no worker to 

be forcibly retained at work provided he gets a court certificate. 

� Payment of wages as per agreed schedule, no deduction for rain damage. 

� Jamadar/Jamadarni system abolished. 

� Employer not to force women/children to work. If they work voluntarily, employer not 

to be blamed. In case of women/children being forced to work by their family head 

the latter should be prosecuted. 

--- 1 ---

--- 2 ---

Darshan Masih alias REHMATAY and others Petitioners 

Versus 

The State ñ Respondent 

Present Mohammad Afzal Zullah, Javid Iqbal and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ 

Constitutional case No 1 of 1988, heard on 11,12,13,14 and 

15 March 1989. 

ORDER 

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-On 30th July, 1988 during the long summer 

vacations the following telegram was received by the Honourable Chief Justice of Supreme 

Court: 

Chief Justice Supreme Court of Pakistan, Rawalpindi We plead for 

protection and bread for our family. We are brick-kiln bonded labourers. We 

have been set at liberty through the court. And now three amongst us have 

been abducted by our owners. Our children and women are living in danger. 

We have filed complaint. No action taken. We are hiding like animals without 

protection or food. We are afraid and hungry. Please help us. We can be 

contacted through counsel Asma Jahangir. Our state can be inspected. We 

want to live like human beings. The law gives no protection to us. 

Darshan Masih (Rehmatay) and 20 companions with women and 

children Main Market, Gulberg, Lahore.î 

The same day it was marked to me. A Bench with myself as Member was then 

functioning at Lahore. On the receipt of the telegram by me at Lahore it was, prima facie, 

considered to be a case falling in the category of public interest litigation and direct 

cognizance by the Supreme Court under Article 184 of the Constitution was possible. As it 

was the first case of its nature, while treating the matter in Chambers, it was necessary to 

seek assistance of the Bar on the legal side and the police, for the purpose of the release of 

the detenus who, it appeared prima facie from the telegram, were the bonded labourers in 

the brick-kiln industry. The following order was accordingly passed:ó 

ìMalik Abdul Karim, President of Lahore High Court Bar Association, 

be requested to assign a senior member of the Bar on the criminal side to 

handle the case. 

In the meanwhile the office to trace out the case marked 'A' in the 

telegram. 

A copy of the telegram and this order be immediately taken to I.-G. 

Punjab personally by an official of the court for a very prompt action; in 

accordance with law and report.î 

Although the order was taken personally to the I.-G. Police by an official of the court 

as a mark of urgency to impress upon him for personal immediate attention, he sent it down 

to the D.I.-G. Police who in turn sent it down to the lower staff; and ultimately, during the 

subsequent detailed inquiry it was discovered that a copy of the Supreme Court directive had 

reached bhatta owner concerned. He obviously took all precautionary measures so as to 

avoid serious consequences. Be that as it may, a D.I.-G. reported that ìa case under section 

406/420, PPC was registered at Police Station Bhai Pheru, District Kasur, against Boota 

Masih and 20 others on the complaint of Malik Abdul Qayyum, for an alleged criminal breach 

--- 3 ---

of trust. The accused reportedly received four lacs in advance as labour charges for 

manufacturing raw bricks; but slipped away alongwith advance money. Boota Masih and 13 

others have been arrestedî. The President Bar Association deputed a senior member of the 

Bar who had also been government law officer (Assistant Advocate-General). He also made 

preliminary inquiries through the sources of the Bar. The accused persons were ordered to 

be produced before the court. However, as the matter was being dealt by a Magistrate 1st 

Class under the Criminal Procedure Code, after the aforernoticed arrest of the persons 

concerned, it was not considered appropriate in the circumstances of the case to pass direct 

orders of release; particularly because the police itself offered that they would themselves 

get them released on bail. Some persons out of the total mentioned in telegram were stated 

to be not availableónor they had been arrested. After a detailed preliminary discussion with 

all concerned the following order was passed:ó 

ìThis matter has come up for further examination after prima facie 

satisfaction through preliminary inquiries that the complaint is bona fide. 

ìThe concerned police officials including Muhammad Ashraf, DSP, 

Pattoki, are present. The learned Advocate-General has appeared to assist 

as Senior Officer of the Court. He has with him his ìown team including Mr. 

Tanvir Ahmad, Additional Advocate-General, Mr. Abdus Sattar Najam, an exlaw 

officer (Assistant Advocate-General), who has been assigned the duty to 

assist the court in this matter in pursuance of the request sent to the 

President of the Bar Association in this behalf. Mrs. Asma Jahangir, a local 

Lawyer, is assisting Mr. Najam. One Mst. Bashiran, who claims to be 

acquainted with the facts and circumstances in which the complaint was 

made to the Supreme Court, is assisting this team of lawyers. 

The DSP has stated that a criminal case having been registered in 

respect of the subject-matter of the complaint, 21 persons (all adult males) 

were required by the police for investigation; 14 of them having already been 

arrested as accused, 11 were bailed out in accordance with law. They are all 

present in court and have stated that they are no more under detention. 

Three persons have appeared in custody. The DSP stated that excepting 

Sadiq Masih, who is in custody under judicial orders, the remaining two are 

going to be released by him today on personal bonds and on furnishing of 

surety bonds by one Yasin, who is present in court and is stated to be the 

present employer of all the detenus and their companions. Regarding the 

remaining seven persons, after obtaining time from the court, the DSP has 

made a statement that to the best of his satisfaction they are not in any form 

of illegal detention. According to him they have concealed themselves out of 

fear of arrest by the police in the case which has already been registered. He 

further stated that Sadiq, Allah Dilta, Boota and Rehmat, who are present 

(out of the alleged detenus) have assured him (the DSP) that the remaining 

seven persons would appear before the DSP as soon as possible because, 

as stated, they are no more now under the fear of any illegal treatment. On 

their assurance, the DSP, in turn, has assured the court that the remaining 

seven persons would also be ìInsha Allahî produced in Court on 16-8-1988 

at 1.30 pm. 

ìThe DSP has been told to submit his report also on 16-8-1988. Mr. 

Abdus Sattar Najam, the representative of the Bar Association, shall also try 

to complete his report which, he has staled, is under preparation. 

Order accordingly 

--- 4 ---

Some representatives of the Press were present in the Court. They 

have been directed not to publish the proceedings for the time being because 

that might prejudice the result of these proceedings. However, they have 

been assured that the final order would not be subject to this restriction, ,. 

unless till then some such development takes place which compels the Court 

to order otherwise.î 

It was feared that perhaps the Police, in order to avoid the charges of illegal 

intervention/detention and pressure at the behest of the owners, had resorted to registration 

of a case and had also arrested some persons; and, the remaining were also thought to be 

under some type of detention and were neither being arrested nor were they produced, 

under the fear that they might divulge something against the owners and/or the Police. In 

order to further know the nature of relationship between the labourers and their employers as 

also the police connections, it was thought necessary to ensure the production of all the 

persons who were allegedly accused persons though they appeared in reality to be bonded 

labour. It may be stated here that by and large all those who were arrested were- being 

released on bail either on the asking of the Police and/or by the owner or by the Magistrate 

on the merits of the case. The proceedings were being held day to day in Chambers; several 

hours daily, were devoted to this matter. The following three orders dated 16th of August, 

17th of August and 21st of August, 1988 were passed after about a fortnight of the receipt of 

the telegram, which would show the trend and purpose of the inquiry. Contemporaneously it 

was being ensured that wherever somebody was being detained or coerced to render forced 

labour, should be protected. The results were being achieved in geometrical progression. 

ìORDER: (Dated 16-8-88) 

Muhammad Ashraf, DSP, has submitted a report in writing. He appears to have 

completely aligned with the bhatta owner- in this case Rana Abdul Qayum. He has not 

mentioned anything about the accusation against the police about which he heard a lot in the 

court proceedings. 

The Additional Advocate-General Mr. Tanvir Ahmad stated .that the report by the 

Advocate-General is under preparation and would be submitted soon. He has cited two 

cases from Indian jurisdiction Neeraja Choudhary AIR 1984 SC 1099 (Para 2) and AIR 1982 

SC 1473 in W.P. 8143 of 1981î. 

Mr. Ahsanullah, who from appearance seems to be a respectable person, claiming to 

be a journalist attached with a newspaper of Hyderabad and also the chief organizer of a 

union constituted to help the Bhatta workers, has appeared today with his team; including 

one Yaqoob an uneducated person described by Mr. Ahsanullah as his office secretarypresumeably 

of the union. Rana Abdul Qayyum, the main actor in this entire episode has 

also attended today. A Lawyer named Muhammad Arif, is present presumeably with a 

watching brief from Rana Abdul Qayyum. 

Mr. Najam, learned advocate representing the Bar Association with Mrs. Asma 

Jahangir have also appeared. Mr. Najam has submitted his report in a folder with additional 

four folders containing photostat copies of unarranged many documents, including 

newspaper reports etc. which have not yet been perused on account of their bulk. Some 

other members of the Bar are also present. Many other persons including the majority of 

alleged detenus, their partisans and the employees of the bhatta owners are present. Due to 

paucity of space, the proceedings could not be held in the chamber. They have been held in 

the court hall. 

Out of the remaining seven detenus, Ashraf has appeared. Yaqoob has also 

appeared. He stated that Aslam is his son and that he is not in detention at the present. For 

some unavoidable reason, Yaqoob has explained, Aslam has not been able to attend. With 

--- 5 ---

egard to Akram, the DSP has produced a certificate of an Army officer stating that he is 

employed in the Army in a civilian category since August 1987 and is not in detention. The 

Army officer in his wisdom has not spared the alleged detenu to appear in court. Thus Akram 

is not in detention. Out of the remaining detenus,- Paloos (stated to be the young brother of 

Sadiq who was present at the time of the last hearing in police custody), is stated to have 

gone away to unknown place and would be produced by the police if further time is allowed. 

Sadiq his elder brother, according to the DSP was got released on bail by him (DSP) but 

strangely enough he is not present. The victim side's apprehension is that though formally 

released he is still in police custody. The DSP explained about Anwar and Hanif that they are 

under the influence of Rehmat, one of the detenus who is now free and sitting with the victim 

group on the benches, occupied by the union officials and other workers. It is visible that the 

alleged victims and others workers are in constant communication with the union officials 

particularly Mr. Ahsanullah while Rana Abdul Qayum and others with him, silting alongwith 

the police officials, are in constant communication with the police. The sympathies and 

alignment are obviously visible. The learned Additional Advocate-General, it seems, has so 

far adopted an independent posture and so did the Advocate-General who had appeared 

during the earlier hearings. 

I encouraged both the sides to enter into some dialogue in court. Accusations and 

counter-accusations started. The purpose was to discover as to how to procure the 

attendance of Paloos, Hanif and Anwar who, it seems, are no more in detention, but still 

under some outside control. Ultimately it was felt that Rehmat the freed detenu who is a 

close relation of Hanif detenu might be able to produce the latter. Regarding the two; Anwar 

and Paloos, it was strongly felt that they are under the influence and control of the police, 

and the DSP is in a position to produce them. Accordingly, both Rehmat and the DSP were 

firmly told to produce them otherwise they might be dealt with under the criminal law. 

During the hearing/discussion which, today also, was spread over about three and a 

half hours as was the previous one, three important aspects amongst many others came to 

light which need to be noted: 

(1) During the heated discussion amongst them it came to light that some freed detenus 

who are present, if examined, would reveal visible marks of injuries on their body. Mr. 

Najam Advocate, Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, Additional Advocate-General and the DSP saw 

the bodies of the two Rehmats; one who has already been mentioned in these 

proceedings who might be described as No. 1 and another Rehmat who can be 

described as No.2. They were also seen by the court. Rehmat No.2 was so terrified 

and under such strong pressure from the police, and about this there is absolutely no 

doubt, that he insisted that the marks of injuries on his back which obviously were the 

result of sota/danda blows, were suffered by him on account of, what he blured 

out,îbricks-bricksî. This was obviously false statement. The D.S.P. also on seeing all 

this admitted that they were marks of danda blows but he was hesitant to go any 

further; presumably because the police officials thought that on account of the 

aforementioned warning with regard to non-production of the remaining detenus they 

might also be proceeded against for crime of omissions and commission. Similarly, 

the victim side was hesitant and terrified that they might be proceeded against either 

by the police or by the court. Further disclosures were becoming impossible. 

Therefore, after careful consideration both the police and the victims as also Rana 

Abdul Qayum and Ahsanullah, were clearly told that whatever has happened it 

should be brought before the court so that some measures should be devised for 

prevention in future; and further that the Court shall not take any action with regard to 

what has already happened. 

(2) Two ladies Mst. Reshman and Sharifan who had appeared on the last hearing, 

according to the victim side as freed detenus and according to the police as intruders, 

--- 6 ---

also appeared today and surprisingly enough they were not taking the side with the 

victim party; instead they started accusing Rehmat No.l and Yaqoob the office 

secretary of the union. In order to observe demeanour further the court questioned 

Mst. Reshman and Sharifan separately. Both (Reshman and Sharifan) were then 

allowed to accuse and confront said Yaqoob in court as they wished. Yaqoob for a 

while faced the questions with firmness and clear denial of allegations of exploitation. 

However, he was brought under pressure by the two women who subdued his voice 

by their shouts. Apparently Yaqoob seemed to have lost in this verbal encounter. It 

would be too premature to say as to who was in the right. In any case, these women 

are at present absolutely free though the possibility that they might have been kept in 

confinement by the bhatta walas, by the police or some clever fellow from the victims' 

side cannot be excluded 

(3) Apart from Reshman, Rehmat No.l, the D.S.P., Younis A.S.I. and Rana Abdul 

Qayum were afforded separate opportunity of giving any information they liked, 

which was not audible by others sitting in the hall. It is not necessary to state here all 

that they said. Rana Abdul Qayum stuck to his position that he is neither an exploiter 

nor has he caused any physical harm to any of the victims nor he maneuvered it 

through police. He insisted on his case against the victims being true. From his 

demeanour it did not at all appear that if he used unlawful acts in the past against the 

victims, he had any intention now, to give it up. Otherwise he seems to be a 

respectable person. The D.S.P. in very guarded language gave sufficient indication 

that the police is helpless when heavy pressures are applied upon them. He did not, 

at all, plead for the A.S.I. Muhammad Younas who seems to be a major character in 

the episode from the police side. He, however, promised that he will help the court in 

finishing the bonded labour practices about which it seems he has considerable 

information. Rehmat (1) still terrified was virtually speechless when he was asked to 

disclose the circumstances in which he was allegedly detained and physically 

harmed. He kept on urging that he should be helped in protecting his family. He 

mentioned that he wants to arrange the marriage of his young daughter but is afraid 

that he might not be able to do so. Mst. Bashiran, who had appeared on the earlier 

hearing, a daughter-in-law of Rehmat, who was very vocal on the last hearing 

conspicuously was absent today. When questioned about this, Rehmat said that they 

have been sent away out of fear of the bhatta walas and the police. When, 

Muhammad Younus, ASI was similarly afforded opportunity, he was first confronted 

with a circumstance which has come to the knowledge of the AR(1) of this Court: that 

he in a very extraordinary way had given photo copy of an important official 

document to Rana Abdul Qayum and when further confronted with some other 

irrefutable circumstances almost broke down, with clamour that he should be 

pardoned. He has committed blunders but with similar explanation as by the D.S.P. 

that the police is helpless under higher pressures. From his demeanour it did not 

seem that the only motive for his wrong doings was the so-called higher pressure. He 

happened to be a reckless young man risen from the lower ranks. He might have felt 

proud of what he did including the torture to the victims presumably at the behest of 

Rana Abdul Qayum for obvious alignment and motives as also perhaps due to his 

own nature. He was clearly told that he should at least now make a resolve not to do 

it in future to which he responded with a very strong promise. He was also assured 

that this court would not take any action nor would direct any action against him for 

what has happened in past provided he keeps his promise.î 

The proceedings ended today with the direction to the D.S.P. to produce Paloos and 

Anwar by 11 o'clock on I8th August, 1988, and similar directions to Rehmat (1) to produce 

Hanif tomorrow at any time, during the court hours. 

--- 7 ---

As on previous hearing the members of the Bar including the learned Additional 

Advocate-General have been very helpful. The appearance of Mr. Ahsanullah also proved 

helpful as he gave the background of the bonded labour practices in the brick-kiln industry in 

Pakistan and his role initially as a student leader and (hen as a Press reporter/labour Union 

leader. It would be premature to make any further assessment about him or his organization. 


Today Rehmat (1) appeared with one Barkat whose wife is the sister of Hanif detenu. 

Barkat explained that Hanif is not, at all, now in detention. He has gone to some unknown 

place. Two other persons also appeared. All stated that Hanif is no more in detention. He 

has run away on account of fear of police and is not traceable though every body having 

heard about him is certain that he is no more in detention. 

Paloos who was required to be produced by the D.S.P. on 18th instant has also 

appeared and has stated (hat he was afraid of the police and was hiding himself here and 

there. Therefore, he did not appear earlier. When asked whether he is under any detention 

now, he answered in the ìnegativeî. Therefore, he is also now free. 

One Anwar Masih who has come with Paloos when questioned also seemed to be 

involved in this affair. He to start with tried to be clever and did not want to disclose anything. 

But when told that in this behalf if he declines to state the circumstances in which Paloos had 

appeared in court, he might be proceeded against, he then disclosed that he had gone to the 

office of Ahsanullah where he found Paloos already present. He further stated that 

Ahsanullah has informed him that Hanif has been held by the police and is now in 

confinement. It is not possible to accept his statement. He himself appears to be of shady 

character though claims to be bhatta labourer. If so from appearance he might be a 

ìJamadarî of workers in the making. However, if Ahsanullah volunteers any fresh information 

about Hanif that would be dealt with separately as noted earlier. All circumstances indicated 

that he was no more in detention. This would, however, not exclude the police or the bhatta 

owners having confined him. The case would now come up tomorrow for appearance of the 

DSP and the remaining one detenu namely Anwar (Paloos having already appeared is no 

more in detention). The case regarding Hanif, as already stated, now stands closed. In these 

proceedings if Ahsanullah or anybody else gives any information with regard to his fresh 

detention that would be examined separately. 

Before this order could be signed, the tragic death of the President of Pakistan took 

place. 18th to 20lh August, 1988, has been declared as mourning holidays. Court will remain 

closed. The case shall now come up on 21st August, 1988. The DSP who was to appear and 

produce Anwar on 18th shall do the same on 21st August, 1988. 

ìORDER (Dated 21-8-1988) 

Anwar son of Mangoo has appeared with Nama a Jamadar. The DSP has identified 

him, as the last alleged detenu. He says he is free and under no detention at present. This 

concludes 1st step in these proceedings to achieve reasonable certainly that all the alleged 

detenus are at present free. 

In addition to the presence as before, Ch. Mohammad Zar, Director Punjab Social 

Welfare Department with his team and Mr. Shahid Mahmood Nadeem Reporter of Herald 

(the latter as a social worker in the field of forced labour) have also appeared. 

Further statements and views heard and orders passed. 

--- 8 ---


In this first case of its type, namely, public interest litigation, the Supreme Court 

having taken cognizance of a case of public importance for the enforcement of fundamental 

rights, regarding bonded labour practices, concluded the first part of the proceedings. All the 

21 detenus who belong to brick-kiln labour force and are of Christian community have been 

released from the alleged detention. With regard to second part, namely, prevention of the 

bonded labour practices in the brick-kiln industry, the court gave directions for devising long 

term measures. The reports have been called from the Advocate-General, Punjab, the Police 

Investigating Agency, the concerned labour union, the concerned Bhatta Owners Union, the 

Director of the Punjab Labour Welfare Department, Lahore High Court Bar Association 

through Mr. Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate, and a separate report which will be treated as 

confidential regarding women and children concerned in this labour problem. It has also 

been directed that in addition to the efforts being made to eradicate the malpractices in the 

field of labour employment in the brick-kiln industry, a system should be devised to avoid all 

grievances/complaints of the nature dealt by the Supreme Court in this case. For that 

purpose, the first meeting shall be held on Thursday the 25th August 1988 at 10.00 a.m. in 

the office and under the chairmanship, of Advocate-General. Punjab; and in his absence, by 

the Additional Advocate-General. The following shall attend that meeting :- 

(i) Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, Additional Advocate-General; 

(ii) A Christian church representative of high order with particular reference - to the 

territorial area concerned; 

(iii) A Muslim scholar aalim/preacher having strong social influence in the area; 

(iv) Mr. Muhammad Zar, Director, Punjab Social Welfare Department; 

(v) Mr. Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate; 

(vi) Mr. Shahid Mahmood Nadeem, Reporter of Herald magazine; 

(vii) Kaila, a Christian labourer belonging to the actual labour force in the brick-kiln 

industry; 

(viii) Mst. Aziz Begum, representing the women and children Christian labour force in the 

brick-kiln industry. 

(ix) Mr. Ihsanullah, representing the Union for brick-kiln labour; 

(x) Mr. Niazi, representing the Brick-kiln Owners Association; 

and any other person whom the chairman of the meeting might think it proper to coopt. 

2. The report about these deliberations and the measures devised therein should be 

with a view to enforce them from 28lh August, 1988, in so far as day-to-day 

complaints are concerned. The report shall be submitted by the Advocate-General on 

the 27th August, 1988 and will be treated as interim report. He will separately submit 

his detailed report regarding long-term measures.î 

As it would appear from the last order all labourers/detenus having been freed, it was 

thought necessary to give enough time to all concerned to prepare and make their 

submissions in writing in the form of reports. They were allowed enough time. The matter 

was adjourned. During all this effort spread over about three weeks, prima facie, it got 

established that at least in the province of Punjab,' lo which the inquiry was primarily directed, 

there existed the practice of bonded labour in brick-kiln industry; though it was not on as vast 

scale as it was stated to be in the neighbouring country. The level of consciousness amongst 

--- 9 ---

the labourers and their organizational network was such that by and large the cases of 

bonded labour and resultant illegal detention were being brought to courts of Magistrate - 

mostly in proceedings under section 100 Cr.P.C. and before the High Court in the habeas 

corpus proceedings. The learned members of the Bar were also I playing a very active role. 

Rather it was one of the major complaints of the brick-kiln owners that they were being 

pressurised by the labour class through, what they said, ìbailiff actionî. They had also offered 

that if they are relieved of the so-called ìbailiff actionî they would give more concessions to 

the labourers. It was noticed that wherever the pressure exerted by the owner was not 

productive or was counter-productive, local police in selected cases was being misused by 

the owners through illegal detention, torture in some cases and registration of false cases in 

others. The magistracy by and large it appears was not taking sides. Individual criminal 

cases of detention, illegal arrest and/or false cases were being treated with sympathy for the 

labourers. In this very case as in many other cases brought to the notice of the court the 

accused were promptly bailed out and subsequently the cases were cither withdrawn or 

concluded without reaching their logical ends. They were cither found to be fit for release of 

the accused without further trial on account of the absence of evidence and/or due to false 

implication. In this case the District Magistrate took prompt action and passed the following 

order within about a week of the proceedings:- 

ìMr. Qamar-uz-Zaman Assistant District Attorney, Kasur for the State 

present. The petitioner is present with his counsel Mr. Jamshed Hussain 

Khokhar, Advocate. 

The petitioner Rao Abdul Oayuum son of Nazir Khan Caste Rajput r/o 

Bhai Pheru moved an application for withdrawal of case FIR No.319 dated 

23-6-1988 under section 406/420, P.P.C., P.S., Bhai Pheru registered at the 

instance of said petitioner wherein he alleged that the petitioner entered into 

an agreement with the respondents for the preparation of earth made bricks 

@ Rs.32 per thousand and he paid the respondent in advance individually 

but the respondents failed to fulfill the agreement and left the work after 

obtaining the amount in advance. 

Subsequently the parties compromised through the intervention of the 

respectables of the area and the complainant moved for the withdrawal of the 

case on 21-8-1988. After giving the due notice to the prosecution and 

obtaining their report the case is fixed for arguments. The arguments were 

heard. Statement of the complainant was recorded. The, complainant also 

filed an affidavit in support of his petition. 

I have examined the judicial file and report by the prosecution. Since 

the parties have compromised and the complainant is no more interested in 

the prosecution of the respondents the proceedings in the trial would be an 

exercise in futility. 

In view of the above, I accept the petition under section 494 Cr. P.C. 

and direct the prosecution to request the trial court concerned for withdrawal 

of the case.î 

Later on the learned Magistrate who had taken cognizance of the case by his order 

dated 13-9-1988 concluded the case after noticing the proceedings under section 494 Cr. 

P.C. and also on account of reason that no case was made out against the accused. 

During the time that the reports were being prepared and the case stood adjourned, 

several applications were received from both sides making complaints against each other. 

The labourers complained about individual forced labour and labour malpractices while the 

brick-kiln owners complained against the labourers as well as the labour union for cheating, 

malpractice and intimidation, particularly putting them under pressure of allegedly false 

--- 10 ---

complaints with the High Court and the Supreme Court. These complaints were also dealt 

with so as to understand the depth and extent of the forced/bonded labour practice in the 

brick-kiln industry as also for keeping in view the causes to devise the means and measures 

through which a lasting solution could be found. 

It may be mentioned here that contrary to what had happened in the neighbouring 

country regarding bonded labour, the Government neither at the Federal nor at the Provincial 

level took sides with the employers-rather the Government agencies (other than local) 

particularly in the Law and Labour offices had sympathetic, and one could say, loaded 

attitude in favour of the labourers. Though the local executive some times did, like the police, 

help the brick-kiln owners; yet on the matters being reported to the court they particularly the 

District Magistrates, by and large, adopted correct attitude. However, a possibility cannot be 

excluded that this response from the District administration may have been due to the 

prompt action which was being taken by the High court in habeas corpus jurisdiction. 

Otherwise a fear/possibility, which was strongly expressed,/existed that left to themselves 

the district administration would side with the employers, and is in the habit of protecting the 

police whenever it sides with them. 

Considerable material on various aspects of the bonded labour practices; in question 

became available in various reports which in compliance with the directions of the court, 

were submitted duly. They are as follows:î 

ìReports of Mr. Khalil Ramdey, Advocate-General, Punjab, together 

with the report of Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Additional Advocate-General, two 

reports of Mr. Abdus Sattar Najam, a representative of the Lahore High Court 

Bar Association; report of Mr. Ahsanullah Khan on behalf of the labourers; 

report of Mr. Shoaib Niazi on behalf of the brick: kiln owners; report of 

Director Labour Welfare Punjab; confidential report submitted by the DSP 

concerned; a confidential report submitted by Miss Asma Jahangir, 

particularly dealing with some matters in which an open report might have 

prejudiced the interest of some innocent persons and another confidential 

report were amongst others submitted to the Courts These reports be read 

as Schedule I (page 1 to 107) to this judgment. (A compilation of complaints 

from both sides although not made part of this judgment like the reports; yet 

they are useful as a . background material in order to understand the nature 

of this matter. , They have been complied (pages 1 to 205) by the office of 

this Court and in case of need can be referred to as Appendix 1 to this 

judgment). The case again came up before me in chambers for passing 

interim orders till the court was able to deal with the matter in court in a larger 

Bench in due course.î 

All concerned were heard at length and keeping in view about hundred complaints 

which were brought to my notice; the proceedings in those cases; the proceedings in this 

case; the reports submitted in writing; and the oral submissions made by all concerned 

including individual labourers and brick-kiln owners the following Orders were passed on 

17/18-9-1988. 

PRESENT 

Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 

------ 

Mr. Khalil Ramday, Advocate-General, Punjab, 

--- 11 ---

Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab. 

Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate. 

Mr. M-A. Hamidi, Deputy Director, Labour. 

Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, D.S.P. Pattoki and all other Police officials. 

Mr. Khalid Mahmood, Advocate for Labourers. 

Mrs. Asma Jahangir for Women and Children. 

Mr. Zainul Abidin, Advocate, for Anjuman-i-Malkan Bhatta Khisht, Punjab with 

Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Niazi, Chairman of Anjuman. Mr. Ehsanullah, President, Bhatta 

Mazdoor Mahaz. Kela Masih. 

Aziz Begum and many other Labourers, bhatta owners and office-bearers of their Anjumans. 

ìORDER: 

1. All concerned have been heard at considerable length. The following broad 

agreement has been reached, (if approved) to be made as Order/decision of the 

court. 

(i) Peshgi system to be discontinued forthwith except that upto one week's estimated 

wages may be paid by the owner to the worker as advance against proper receipt. 

(ii) The payment shall be made to the worker concerned or the head of the household, 

direct in cash. The receipt shall be issued in duplicate ó one to be retained by each. 

(iii) The Institution of ìJamadarî is finished and he is excluded for all times. No payment 

for others shall be made to him nor shall it be acknowledged in any forum, as due 

in any form, if claimed to have been made through him. 

(iv) The Institution of ìJamadarniî is likewise finished altogether. 

(v) Every ease registered anywhere in Punjab by the Police, which deals with directly or 

indirectly, any of the constituents of the practice of bonded labour in the brick-kiln 

industry, shall be reported to the Advocate-General, with a copy of the F.I.R. within 

24 hours. The Advocate-General shall submit a photocopy of the F.I.R. and other 

documents, if any, with his own comments, within further 24 hours, to the Supreme 

Court. 

(vi) Past Peshgis. for the time being, shall not be treated as void and unrecoverable. 

However, they shall not at all be recovered in any form through police or through the 

employment of the so-called ìlabourî (̵έϭΩΰϣ) under the Peshgi recovery 

arrangementî or through any coercive measure; and further orders shall be made by 

the court in this behalf including the request for utilisation of the Zakat fund for the 

discharge of so-called bad debts of Peshgi. The question, whether recoveries would 

be abolished altogether and whether legislation shall be made on the lines as done in 

India, is deferred for the time being, for six months. This aspect shall be reviewed in 

the light of the working of these arrangements to which all concerned have agreed, if 

approved by Court. 

(vii) Filing of habeas corpus petitions shall not be stopped. However, all concerned have 

agreed that if the arrangements agreed upon are put into practice the need for filing 

false/genuine habeas corpus petitions would not arise. The Advocate-General shall, 

however, appear personally in every habeas corpus petition whether in the High 

Court or. in the Supreme Court. 

(viii) The owners shall not directly ask or pressurise any labourer for employing the 

womenfolk or children. However, if the latter do so at their own risk and responsibility, 

--- 12 ---

no complaint shall then be made against the bhatta owners in this behalf. The head 

of the household who employs any of their womenfolk against her wishes and/or 

children, might in proper cases, be proceeded against. The payment made to the 

head of the household including that of his family members male, female, shall be in 

the name of the head of the household. Separate recipients may not be mentioned in 

the formal registers and receipts. 

(ix) No deduction whatsoever shall be made from wages; nor the number ìof bricks, if 

they are more than 1,000, shall be counted as 1000 in any garb. The damage/loss to 

the bricks suffered on account of rain shall be wholly borne by the owner. Similarly, 

no other deduction including that of past Peshgi. loans including those for marriage 

or for- medical treatment etc. shall be made from the wages. 

(x) Payment made by the owner to the labourer in addition to the Wages whether in the 

form of formal loan or otherwise for marriages and other ceremonies or for medicines 

or other purposes shall not be recoverable from the labourer. If genuinely paid/spent 

they shall be treated as for good-will or donation. 

(xi) Other arrangements that may be specified at the final stage in the final judgment. 

2. For the time being, it has been decided to make amongst others, the following 

arrangements for the implementation of the interim agreement/decision reached with 

the consent of all concerned:- 

(a) The Advocate-General of the province shall be incharge of all criminal matters 

directly or indirectly concerned with the practice of bonded labour-whether or not 

formally instituted or registered. He shall also be indirectly incharge of the process of 

the recovery of past genuine Peshgis in so far as it would be practicable, till a new 

law is made about the same. He shall also be directly involved in the determination of 

the amount of past Peshgis.î 

(b) The Provincial Bar Council, the High Court Bar Association, District Bar Associations, 

and other local Bar Associations, shall form Committees to deal with the bonded 

labour. The Vice-Chairman of the Provincial Bar Council shall be the head of this 

system of committees. The President of the Lahore High Court Bar Association will 

coordinate his proceedings with the Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council. 

(c) A separate Press Committee shall be formed with Mr. Majid Nizami, Chief Editor of 

Nawa-i-Waqt subject to his consent, as the head of this committee. . 

(d) A Committee for Women and Children shall be formed with Begum Dr. Justice Javid 

Iqbal as its Chairperson, subject to her consent. 

(e) Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court will be approached by the learned 

Advocate-General to apprise him of the bonded labour situation in Punjab and about 

the present case and proceedings. The Advocate-General shall also make a request 

for nomination of an Hon'ble Judge of the High Court from amongst the members of 

the Administration Committee, to deal with the cases, which, the Advocate-General 

would certify as concerned directly or indirectly with the subject of Bonded 

Labour.î ì 

The case is adjourned for tomorrow for further proceedings. Lahore: 17-9-1988. 

ìORDER: 

--- 13 --- 

Sd/- M. A. Zullah, J.î 

This part heard case has concluded after the agreement/decision reached by all 

concerned, recorded yesterday. It has again been read, discussed and explained. All

concerned have once more accepted it but have further made a joint request that it should 

be treated as an interim arrangement/agreement and consequently as an interim decision. 

Order accordingly; subject, however, to necessary further conditions and elaboration. 

It needs to be observed and clarified that all concerned in this case have assisted the 

court ungrudgingly throughout the hearing which is spread over several weeks and many 

hours of formal court's sittings. The proceedings have not been treated as of adversary 

character. The labourers, employers, and their organisations projected their views with 

candidness and honesty of purpose representing their respective interests. It is in this 

context that it has to be further clarified that no party as such would be deemed to have been 

recognised as ìcomplainantî, ìaccusedî or ìcontesting partyî; nor, the interim decision shall 

be treated as the success or failure in any form, of any person, party or institution. 

LAHORE. 

18th September, 1988. Sd/- MA. Zullah, J.î 

An effort was being made by all concerned to faithfully obey the above orders and 

the case had not yet been fixed before the court when further complaints-rather mass of 

them, addressed; some directly to me and others to Hon'ble Chief Justice, started pouring in. 

They were from both sides. The owners complained that the labourers were leaving their 

brick-kilns, somewhere en mass, with a view to bring to a grinding halt the entire brick-kiln 

industry. And the labourers complained that the attitude of the brick-kiln owners had become 

more harsh. It was not only surprising but also painful to see this newly developed situation. 

However, it did not take long to find out the malady. The union headed by Mr. Ahsanullah, it 

was discovered, had sent down misrepresented and misquoted orders dated 17th/18lh 

September, 1988 to his lower organisations and to some individuals as well. Photocopies of 

that material came into the hands of the labourers in general. They, as informed by the union, 

took it as finally settled that the past Peshgis had been abolished and that they were free of 

their contracts with their employers; and thus were no more cither liable to return the 

amounts received or to do any work for the employers. When they started moving out, the 

brick-kiln owners became panicky and in reaction and retaliation were in many cases, 

responsible for fresh high handedness to the labourers. The cause of the new development 

was discovered by chance in a complaint received from the labourers of a brick-kiln who 

made the grievance that despite the court having absolved the labourers of all 

responsibilities with regard to their part of the contract and their liability to return the money 

having been waived by the court, they could stay away from the work while the brick-kiln 

owner was insisting upon his rights under the contract. And they appended the copies of the 

information-rather wrong information supplied to them by the union. Photostat copies of the 

material were also sent to the court otherwise. 

In the meanwhile the brick-kiln owners in further retaliation resorted to province-wise 

strike; mainly, on two grounds. One, that the labour union was misusing the court orders; and, 

(ii) that by this mis-use it further led the labourers in large number to flout their genuine 

contracts-though at many places there were absolutely no complaints of forced/bonded 

labour. Again parties were heard, complaint of the brick-kiln owners was, prima facie, 

considered to be correct. Mr. Ahsanullah Khan also realised his mistake. Accordingly, further 

detailed orders in chambers were passed in order to put the record right. Mr. Ahsanullah also 

promised to co-operate by sending down the correct version of the court orders. The order 

dated 23-11-1988, again passed in chambers as an interim order, is reproduced below:- 

ì23-11-1988 This interim order is in continuation of an earlier order 

dated 18-9-1988 and it disposes of two Miscellaneous Applications (1) No. 

730/88 and (2) No.751/88-one is by the labourers and the other by the 

owners. They respectively represent the complaints received from both the 

sides numbering a few dozens each.î 

--- 14 ---

2. The labourers have complained that despite the past Peshgis (advances) having 

been held by the Supreme Court as not recoverable (though it is not so), the owners 

still insist on recoveries and on the refusal/resistance by the labourers, the latter are 

maltreated. The complaint of the owners is that despite their willingness to obey and 

observe the conditions agreed upon and contained in the order dated 18-9-1988, the 

labourers, in the first instance, refuse to pay back the Peshgis (prior to 18-9-1988) 

and when the owners insist upon the return of Peshgis, the labourers not only stop 

the work but in many cases leave the brick-kiln putting the owners to heavy losses. 

Apart from those who are in this profession since long, some young new entrants 

who were not at all responsible for the ìpeshgi systemî and had invested their hardearned 

earnings and even sale proceeds of their ancestral property in this industry 

complained of a loss of rupees few lacs each within few months due to running away 

of the labourers. This all, according to the owners, has been done by the labour 

leaders dealing with their industry, particularly, the Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz and its 

President Mr. Ahsanullah. 

3. After hearing both the sides at some length, I came to the conclusion that the dispute 

regarding re-payment of the past peshgis and the resultant hardship for both the 

sides arose on account of wrong information about the order of this court conveyed 

by Mr. Ahsanullah and his Mahaz to the labourers who are mostly uneducated. Prima 

facie, it could be said that it was an attempt at misrepresentation. Be that as it may, 

the reaction by the owners, it prima facie appears, was also wholly unjustified. Some 

of them tried to (allegedly) pressurize the labourers in connection with which few 

cases have also been registered against them-some quite serious. In other cases, on 

the direction of this court, the illaqa Magistrate acted under section 100, Cr.P.C. as a 

result of which several labourers were released from confinement which appeared to 

be illegal. 

4. After having understood the controversy on this minor difference, on only one point 

out of several tentatively covered by the agreement embodied in the interim order 

dated 18-9-1988, presidents of both the organizations were asked by the court to use 

their good offices for helping each side. Both made strong promises. The experience 

of the last about three weeks shows that none of them has fulfilled them. Their 

undertakings in writing, however, are on the record. 

5. As the misunderstanding had started on account of the conduct of Mr. Ahsanullah 

and his Mahaz, therefore, the following order was passed by the court on Civil 

Miscellaneous Application No. 730/88:- 

ìThis problem also seems to have arisen on account of 

misrepresentation of Labour Mahaz about the decision of the 

Supreme Court on question of Peshgi. The president of the Mahaz, 

Mr. Ahsanullah, be asked to write a letter to the applicants explaining 

the correct position. They in the meanwhile be told to seek normal 

legal remedies, regarding any complaint, which might have arisen on 

account of the mistake of the Mahaz and on account (hereof, their 

own misunderstanding. 

The draft letter to be sent by Mr. Ihsanullah should be 

produced before the Court for scrutiny, so that another mistake or 

mischief should not be committed, within 48 hours.î 

On another similar application the following order was 

passed:- 

ìThis is another gross misrepresentation of the court order. 

The applicant is suffering on account of some one else's fault. Let the 

--- 15 ---

Mahaz: undo this impression and Mr. Ihsanullah be asked whether he 

will remove the wrong impression and how? Reply in writing by 

tomorrow. 

Mr. Ihsanullah sent a long reply to the court without attending 

to the immediate need, trying to show that he was not responsible for 

the wrong information to the labourers about the contents of the order 

of the court and that it was the impression gained by the labourers 

themselves on reading of the newspapers carrying the report of the 

interim order dated 18-9-1988 of the court. He was then seat for, 

questioned and confronted with a part of his own reply wherein he 

wrongly represented that the court had stopped the owners from 

recovering the past Peshgis till further orders. As this was obviously 

incorrect and contrary to the order of the Court wherein the recovery 

of the past Peshgis in accordance with law has not at all been 

stopped.î 

Mr. Ihsanullah agreed to remove the misunderstanding and undertook to do all that 

was necessary in this behalf. He, however, did not admit that he did anything intentionally to 

misrepresent the court order though heî frankly admitted there was misunderstanding 

amongst the labourers about the payment/ recovery of the past peshgis. He also promised 

that he would immediately write a letter removing the wrong impression. Accordingly, the 

following order was passed on 20-11-1988:- 

ìMr. Ihsanullah states that he did not properly understand order dated 

10th November, 1988 and that he has now understood the order as well as 

the situation with which it deals. He has promised to do his best to remove 

the misunderstanding about the recovery of the past 'peshgis' in the mind of 

the applicants as well as in the minds of the other labourers. Accordingly, he 

has started preparing a draft translation verbatim of the order dated 18lh 

September, 1988 which he intends circulating amongst all the bhatta 

labourers. Let him do so after obtaining a certified copy from the court. 'When 

he has prepared the translation he shall seek approval thereof from the office 

In the meanwhile he has undertaken to address a short letter to the 

applicants informing them about that part of the order of this court which 

relates to the liability of the labourers to pay past 'peshgis' and about the 

methods through which these can be recovered. He would also inform them 

that lawful methods other than those prohibited by the Supreme Court with 

regard to the recovery of the past 'peshgis' have neither been stopped nor 

such lawful methods have been declared as unlawful. When this letter is 

prepared the same also shall be approved by the office. Mr. Ihsanullah has 

been told that he can get a copy of this order.î 

In pursuance to this order, he in the first instance submitted a lengthy letter 

addressed by him to the labourers for approval by the court office. It was returned to him as it 

did not come upto the mark regarding the undertaking given by him to the court. He 

submitted another draft letter which though deficient in some respects was approved; 

because Mr. Ihsanullah agreed to give a note on this letter stating that copies of two orders 

of the court, one dated 20th November, 1988 reproduced above and the other dated 22nd 

November 1988 passed on Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 751/88 were appended with 

his letter. The latter order passed on the representative application of the owners making 

complaint against the labourers and their leaders, as already noticed, is as follows:- 

--- 16 ---

˻˻-˺˺-́́ 

ìPast-peshgis prior to 18-9-1988 can be recovered in accordance 

with law. The court has neither declared them void nor have they been held 

to be irrecoverable.î 

ΦϳέΎΗ 

The letter with the note is reproduced below; 

ϢϴΣήϟ΍ ϦϤΣήϟ΍ Ϳ΍ ϢδΑ 

ÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖ ΏΎϨΟ 

έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϡΎϧ 

--- 17 --- 

̶ϣήΘΤϣ ϭ ̶ϣή̰ϣ 

BBBBB 

ؐϴϣ 18-9-1988 ؟ΧέϮϣ ؟Ϡμϴϓ ف̯ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ Ի̶Ϥψϋ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ΐΣΎλ ΞΟ ϞοΎϓ ؟Ϡχ Ϟπϓ΍ ΪϤΤϣ βՍδΟ ΏΎϨΟ 

فϧ ΐΣΎλ ΞΟ ϞοΎϓ Ύ̯ βΟ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶΋Ύ̡ 

̶Ϥ٬ϓ ςϠϏ Ϫ̪̯ ؐϴϣ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؏ϮϨ̯έΎ̯ ή̡ ρΎϘϧ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ ف̯ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ 

̶τΨΘγΩ ήϳί ؟̯ ف٫ ΎϳΎϣήϓ έΩΎλ Ϣ̰Σ ف΋Ϯ٫ فΗΎՍϤϧ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ϕήϔΘϣ ̮ϳ΍ Ϯ̯ ˯20-11-1888 

؟ΧέϮϣ ف΋Ϯ٫ فΘϴϟ βՌϮϧ 

΍άԻ٬ϟ ؐϳή̯ ΖΣΎοϭ ؐϴϣ ̶ϬՍ̩ ̵ήϳήΤΗ ̮ϳ΍ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧή̯ έϭΩ Ϯ̯ ̶Ϥ٬ϓ ςϠϏ ̶ϟ΍ϭ فϧΎΟ ̶΋Ύ̡ ؐϴϣ ϦϤο ف̯ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ 

̶Θϗϭ Ϯ̯ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ̶̯ ̶οΎϣ ؟̯ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶̯ ΖΣΎοϭ فϴϟ ف̯ ωϼσ΍ ̶̯ ̟΁ ؐϴϣ ϞϴϤόΗ ̶̯ Ϣ̰Σ ف̯ ΐΣΎλ ΞΟ ϞοΎϓ 

؟όϳέάΑ Ύϳ ή̯ Ύ̴ϟ ή̡ ϡΎ̯ ̶ΘγΩήΑί Ύϳ βϴϟϮ̡ ؟όϳέάΑ ϡϮϗέ ؟ϳ Ϧ̰ϴϟ -Ύ̳ 

ف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΩ ؟ϧ έ΍ήϗ ̶ϟϮλϭ ϞΑΎϗΎϧ Ύϳ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ήϴϏ ή̡ έϮσ 

ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ؐϴϣ βΟ ̶̳ ف΋Ύϣήϓ έΩΎλ ϡΎ̰Σ΍ 

Ϊϳΰϣ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ α΍ -̶̳ 

ف΋ΎΟ ̶̯ ؟ϧ ϝϮλϭ ؟Ϙϳήσ ̵ήΒΟ ̶ϬΑ ̶δ̯ 

ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ α΍ Ύϳ ؐϴ΋ΎΟ ̵Ω ή̯ ϢΘΧ Ϟ̰ϟΎΑ ؏ΎϴϟϮλϭ ؟̯ ϝ΍Ϯγ ؟ϳ -ف٫ 

ϞϣΎη ̶ϬΑ ϝΎϤόΘγ΍ Ύ̯ տϨϓ Γ΍Ϯ̯ί فϴϟ ف̯ ̶̴ϴ΋΍Ω΍ ̶̯ 

ΕΎϣΎψΘϧ΍ ϡΎϤΗ ؐϴϣ ϦϤο α΍ -ف٫ 

ΎΗΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ήΧΆϣ فϴϟ ف̯ ٪Ύϣ Ϫ̩ ή̡ έϮσ ̶Θϗϭ ϮΗ ف΋ΎΟ ̶̯ ̵ίΎγ ϥϮϧΎϗ ή̡ ίήσ ̶̯ ΕέΎϬΑ 

-Ύ̳ 

ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ έϮϏ ف΋Ϯ٫ فΘϬ̯έ ήψϧΪϣ Ϯ̯ ف٫ ΖϤ٫Ύϔϣ ̶̯ ϦϴϘϳήϓ ή̡ ϦΟ 

ϥΎΧ Ϳ΍ ϥΎδΣ΍ 

-؏Ϯ٫ 

Ύ٫έ ή̯ ΍ά٫ ̶ϬՍ̩ ϒϟ ϞϘϧ ϮՌϮϓ ̮ϳ΍ ̶̯ ϻΎΑ ؟ϟϮΤϣ ˯20-11-1988 

ή̡ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ̶Ό̳ ̵Ω فγ ϑήσ ̶̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟̯ ϮΟ ϞϘϧ ̶̯ ˯22-11-1988 

؟ΧέϮϣ Ϣ̰Σ ف̯ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ 

ՊϮϧ 

ήΒϤϧ 

؟ΧέϮϣ Ϣ̰Σ έϭ΍ ̮ϳ΍ ف̯ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ 

-ف٫ 

΍ά٫ ϒϟ ̶ϬΑ ٪ϭ ΍Ϯ٫ έΩΎλ 

6. About two months have passed since the order dated 18-9-1988 was passed. Many 

controversies now stand resolved. In my assessment the majority of the owners are 

honest, God-fearing and honourable citizens. Same applies to the majority of the 

labourers. 

7. Some of the owners made formal petitions for review, reconsideration and/or 

clarification of the order dated 18-9-1988. After hearing all the learned counsel, it 

appeared as if they sought clarification of the order. When told that it is not a final 

order and the case has to go to the Bench for final orders, they made their 

submissions and proposals for improving the arrangements already made. Some of 

them submitted the proposal in writing that office-bearers of every Bar Association in 

the Punjab be asked to help resolve the differences of owners and labourers on the 

question of re-payment/return of past peshgis. This was a laudable suggestion. It 

would have been accepted by the court, amongst others, for the reason that the 

honourable members of the Bar are not only to be entrusted the important role in the 

enforcement of fundamental rights in this first case of its nature dealt by the Supreme 

court; but, also they should act as a vanguard of an enlightened intellectual force for 

the enforcement of the fundamental rights and other similar rights enshrined in the 

constitution and the Objectives Resolution. However, the court has not been able to 

put this scheme into operation because of certain procedural impediments regarding 

the role of the Bar Associations in the Bar Councils Act and also due to the elections 

with which the leaders of the Bar at the local level were deeply concerned. This 

question and other proposals would, however, be dealt with by the Bench hearing the 

case. .

8. All those applications are, accordingly, disposed of. The applicants and their counsel, 

however, would be at liberty to assist the court when the case is fixed for final 

hearing before the Bench. Thus all the miscellaneous applications/telegrams and 

letters addressed to the court on the above issue and those dealt with in the interim 

order now stand disposed of by this interim order, subject however, to the final 

decision by the court. 

9. In the meanwhile both Mr. Ihsanullah and Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Niazi are directed 

to create atmosphere of amity and maintain the same till the final decision by the 

court. It is further directed that the complaints about infringement of any right shall 

be addressed directly to the functionaries and courts who can redress the grievance 

under the relevant laws; in particular, the complaint and information about the illegal 

confinement should also be addressed to the Illaqa Magistrate who shall promptly act 

under Section 100 Cr. P.C.- the High Court's jurisdiction notwithstanding. The 

disputes regarding repayment of the past Peshgis may be taken before the civil court 

for redress in accordance with law. 

10. About the registration of the criminal cases, I had passed a general order which 

might have created some hardships for the owners as well as the labourers-but more 

for the owners. While Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Niazi, to be fair to him, stated that he 

would not try to protect an owner who commits zulm on his labourers,' Mr. Ihsanullah 

frankly stated that the said order should not be implemented because it will push the 

matter again into the hands of the police. He also stated that he has no ill-will against 

the owners. Accordingly, that order was not sent down for implementation. Be that as 

it may, the law regarding crime and punishment shall continue to have its course. 

The procedure prescribed in the earlier order after the registration of the relevant 

cases, shall be followed. 

11. The office will take steps so as to ensure that now the complaints and applications 

are addressed to the relevant functionaries and courts and not to the Supreme Court 

directly. The labour organizations ,as also the owners' organizations shall also make 

their respective parties understand the order dated 18-9-1988 and this order with 

various directions. It seems they have not properly done enough work on this aspect 

of the matter. In addition the Director Labour, Punjab, shall do the needful in this 

behalf. A copy of this order shall be sent to him as also to the other concerned 

government departments. 

Some complaints were made to take action for contempt of court against both sides, 

particularly after the last order. But keeping in view the fact that both had committed 

mistakes not always intentional, and there was some clement of emotional reactions, 

together with, lack of understanding about this public interest litigation and its thrust, it was 

not considered appropriate to do so. A similar complaint having been made against the 

Television Corporation, it has been separately dealt with. 

Although after the last order the main parties once again started making efforts to 

implement the orders in chambers dated 17/18-9-1988 in letter and spirit; yet miscellaneous 

petitions were also filed, so as to avoid the same being accepted as the final decision for the 

disposal of the entire matter. However, when the full bench heard the matter in court,-at 

length, the parties, their counsel and others concerned again thoroughly discussed the 

implications of those orders in and out of court, with a view to present an agreed solution, to 

the court. As a result of these efforts and with the help of the court, they agreed to the 

passing of almost the same orders on substantial issues with some adjustments 

necessitated by experience, meanwhile. 

The agreed order for final disposal of the case passed on 15-3-1989 reads as 

follows:- 

--- 18 ---

(Note: The agreed rendering in Urdu is also reproduced). 

ì(In the matter of Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Re: Bonded 

Labour in Brick-kiln Industry) 

ìMembers of both the parties in person and through their learned; 

counsel have been heard in the above-noted case. The following] agreement 

in principle has been reached and be made as the order/decision of the 

court:- 

(a) Past Peshgis: 

(i) It is to be made clear that past unreturned Peshgis given to the labourers by brickkiln 

industry owners are still outstanding against the labourers. The labourers are 

legally bound to return all such outstanding peshgis to the respective kiln industry 

owners. However, in case of denial of peaceful return of these Peshgis, the owners 

are authorised to recover, the same by legal means i.e. through court decreesó 

cases to be decided expeditiously with effective notices to the labourers; but, they 

are not authorised to use unlawful means for the recoveries of such Peshgis, such as 

coercive methods or use of police. 

(ii) Past Special Emergency Loans. A maximum of Rs. 5,000 per household granted to 

the labourers in the past, in the form of formal loans or grants for marriages, religious 

festivals, medicine/treatment and death ceremonies, by the owners (to the labourers) 

shall not be recoverable from them and shall be treated as donation. This concession 

shall only be available to those labourers who return and resume their work 

voluntarily. 

(b) Future Peshgis. Peshgis system in future is to be discontinued. Although in proper 

cases if a valid agreement on this point is reached between a labourer and a brickkiln 

owner, the latter shall give to the former an advance loan, which shall not be in 

any case more than seven days wages, against a proper receipt in duplicate, copy of 

which shall be retained by both the parties. The payments/adjustments of which shall 

be made to the owners in easy installments as agreed by the parties. However, if a 

loan in this behalf is not settled/adjusted, no additional loan is to be advanced by the 

owner and if given that would be against the spirit of the agreement and would be at 

the risk of the owner. 

(c) Return to work. A notice/direction is to be issued to all the labourers to come for 

work and report to their respective bhatta owners; who will. give them assurance in 

writing that they will not use any coercive methods or use of police force to bring 

them back or to retain them I However, in case a laborer does not want to come back 

or having returned, wants to leave his work in the bhatta of an existing owner, or . to 

get job elsewhere, or in the bhatta of another owner, he shall not be retained 

forceibly provided he on application to be made to the concerned District Judge/Civil 

Judge 1st Class, gets a certificate for the purpose. 

(d) Payment of Wages. Payment of wages shall have to be made to the labourers on 

daily/weekly/fortnightly/monthly basis as agreed upon: between the labourer and 

bhatta owner, regularly. No deductions are to be made from their wages for the 

damage/losses to bricks caused on account of rain and it shall be borne by the 

bhatta owners. 

(e) Jamadar/Jamadarni System. The existing Jamadar/Jamadarni system is to cease 

forthwith. All the labourers shall have direct dealings with their respective owners. No 

payments on behalf of the labourers shall be made to them nor 

recoverable/adjustable. 

--- 19 ---

(f) The owners shall not directly or indirectly ask or pressurise any labourer for 

employing the womenfolk or children. However, if the latter do so at their own risk 

and responsibility, no complaint shall then be made against the bhatta owners in this 

behalf. The head of the household who employs any of their womenfolk against her 

wishes and/or children, might in proper cases be proceeded against.î 

Agreed/Official Urdu Version. 

ؐϴϣ ـέΎΑ ف̯ ΫΎϔϧ ف̯ ϕϮϘΣ ̵ΩΎϴϨΑ ف̯ (Bonded Labour) ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ΪϨΑΎ̡ ؐϴϣ ̵ίΎγ ΖθΧ ΖόϨλ 

̶ϟϮλ΍ ϦϴΑΎϣ ف̯ ϥ΍ -ف٫ 

ΎϨγ ؟όϳέΫ ف̯ ˯ϼ̯ϭ ف̯ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ ή̡ έϮσ ̶Η΍Ϋ Ϯ̯ ϦϴϘϳήϓ ف̯ ؟ϣΪϘϣ ϻΎΑ ؟ΟέΪϨϣ فϧ Ϣ٫ 

-Ύ̳ 

ف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΩ ή̯ ϞϳΪΒΗ ؐϴϣ ؟Ϡμϴϓ Ύϳ Ϣ̰Σ ̶Θϟ΍Ϊϋ Ϯ̯ βΟ ف٫ Ύϴ̳ Ύ̡ فσ ؟ΗϮΠϤγ 

ϞϳΫ ؟ΟέΪϨϣ ή̡ έϮσ 

--- 20 --- 

³ 

̶̴θϴ̡ ؟ϘΑΎγ 

ؐϴ̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ β̡΍ϭ فϧ ؏Ϯ٬ϧ΍ ϮΟ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ؟ϘΑΎγ ̶Ό̳ ̵Ω Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟̯ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ΢ο΍ϭ Ϯ̯ ΕΎΑ ΕΎΑ α΍ (i) 

ΪϨΑΎ̡ ف̯ فϧή̯ ΍Ω΍ Ϯ̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ΍Ωϻ΍ ΐΟ΍ϭ ϡΎϤΗ ̶δϳ΍ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥϮϧΎϗ ف΋ϭέί΍ -ؐϴ٫ 

΍Ωϻ΍ ΐΟ΍ϭ ؟ϣΫ ف̯ ϥ˵΍ 

ϊ΋΍έΫ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ϮΗ ـή̯ έΎ̰ϧ΍ فγ فϧή̯ ΍Ω΍ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ ̶΋Ύϔλ ΢Ϡλ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ̶δϳ΍ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ή̳΍ Ϣ٫ΎΗ -ؐϴ٫ 

؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ف̯ ̶ϟϮλϭ ̶̯ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ -ف̳ 

؏Ϯ٫ ίΎΠϣ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϝϮλϭ ϡϮϗέ ؟ϳ ؟όϳέΫ ف̯ ف΋Ύ٫ ̵ή̳վ ̶ΘϟΎϋ ̶Ϩόϳ 

ϊ΋΍έΫ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ήϴϏ فϴϟ ف̯ ̶ϟϮλϭ ̶̯ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ Ϯ̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ -ف̳ 

ؐϴ΋ΎΟ ف΋ΎՍ̢ϧ ΪϠΟ ί΍ ΪϠΟ ή̯ ـΩ βՌϮϧ ήΛΆϣ Ϯ̯ 

-ف̳ 

ؐϳή̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ϝϮλϭ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ βϴϟϮ̡ ؟όϳέάΑ Ύϳ ή̡ έϮσ ̵ήΒΟ ٪ϭ ̶Ϩόϳ Ύ̳ Ϯ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ έΎϴΘΧ΍ Ύ̯ فϧή̯ ϝΎϤόΘγ΍ 

ϒϟ΍ 

فοήϗ ̶ϣΎ̴Ϩ٫ ̶λϮμΧ ؟ϘΑΎγ ( ii) 

Ύϳ ؟ΠϟΎόϣ Νϼϋ Ύϳ έ΍Ϯ٬Η ̶Β٫άϣ Ύϳ ٪ΎϴΑ ̵ΩΎη ؐϴϣ ̶οΎϣ Ϯ̯ فϧ΍ήϬ̳ έϭΩΰϣ ̮ϳ΍ ̶δ̯ فγ ΐϧΎΟ ̶̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ 

̶δϳ΍ -̶̳ 

؏Ϯ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ ̶δ̡΍ϭ ϞΑΎϗ ϡϮϗέ ̶̯ ̮Η ف̡ϭέ έ΍ΰ٫ ̨ϧΎ̡ ̶Ό̳ ̵Ω Ջϧ΍ή̳ Ύϳ νήϗ έϮτΑ ؐϴϣ فϠδϠγ ف̯ ϡϮγέ ̶̯ ̱ήϣ 

-ف̳ 

ؐϳή̯ ωϭήη ϡΎ̯ ή̯ ΁ β̡΍ϭ ή̡ έϮσ ؟ϧ΍έΎ̯Ύοέ ή̡ ؏ϮՍϬΑ ؟ϘϠόΘϣ فϨ̡΍ ϮΟ ؐϴϣ ΕέϮλ 

̶̴θϴ̡ ٪ΪϨ΋΁ 

ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ή̳΍ ؐϴϣ ؏ϮΗέϮλ ΐγΎϨϣ Ϣ٫ΎΗ Ύ̳ ف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΩ ή̯ ϢΘΧ ϢՍδγ ̶̴θϴ̡ فϴϟ ف̯ ٪ΪϨ΋΁ 

έϭΩΰϣ έ΍ΪϘϣ ̶̯ βΟ Ύ̳ ف̰γ ـΩ ؟οήϗ ̶̴θϴ̡ Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ˬ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ϮΗ ف΋ΎΟ Ύ̡ فσ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ΰ΋ΎΟ ؐϴϣ ϦϤο α΍ ϥΎϴϣέΩ 

Εή̡ ̮ϳ΍ ̮ϳ΍ ϖϳήϓ ؏ϮϧϭΩ έϭ΍ ̶̳ ف΋ΎΟ ̶̯ ή̡ Ϊϴγέ Εή̡ ϭΩ ̶̴ϴ΋΍Ω΍ ̶δϳ΍ -̶̳ 

Ϯ٫ ήΑ΍ήΑ ف̯ ΕΎΒΟ΍ϭ 

ف̯ ίϭέ ΕΎγ ف̯ 

ρΎδϗ΍ ϥΎγ΁ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ̶Ϥ٫ΎΑ ف̯ ϦϴϘϳήϓ ̶΋Ύ٬Ϩϣ ̶̴ϴ΋΍Ω΍ ̶̯ ؏Ϯοήϗ فδϳ΍ Ϯ̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ -ف̳ 

ؐϴϬ̯έ αΎ̡ فϨ̡΍ Ϊϴγέ 

ـή̯ Ύδϳ΍ ή̳΍ έϭ΍ ± Ύ̳ ـΩ ؐϴ٬ϧ ؟οήϗ Ϊϳΰϣ Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ϮΗ ف̰γ Ϯ٫ ؟ϧ فσ Ύϳ ΍Ω΍ ؟οήϗ Ύδϳ΍ ή̳΍ Ϣ٫ΎΗ ̶̳ Ϯ٫ ؐϴϣ 

-Ύ̳ 

Ϯ٫ έ΍Ω ؟ϣΫ ΩϮΧ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ έϭ΍ Ύ̳ Ϯ٫ ̶ϓΎϨϣ ف̯ Ρϭέ ̶̯ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ϡ΍Ϊϗ΍ ؟ϳ Ύ̯ α΍ ϮΗ Ύ̳ 

̶δ̡΍ϭ ή̡ ϡΎ̯ 

؟ՍϬΑ ؟ϘϠόΘϣ فϨ̡΍ فϨ̡΍ ٪ϭ ؟̯ ̶̳ ف΋ΎΟ ̶̯ ̵έΎΟ Ζϳ΍Ϊ٫ βՌϮϧ ϡΎϧ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϡΎϤΗ فγ ϑήσ ̶̯ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ 

ϥ˵΍ ٪ϭ ؟̯ ف̳ ؐϴ΋΍ή̯ ̶ϧΎ٫Ω ϦϴϘϳ ή̡ έϮσ ̵ήϳήΤΗ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ -ؐϴ΋ΎΟ 

فϠ̩ β̡΍ϭ فϴϟ ف̯ ϡΎ̯ αΎ̡ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ 

ή̳΍ ؟ΘΒϟ΍ -ف̳ 

ؐϳή̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ϝΎϤόΘγ΍ Ύ̯ βϴϟϮ̡ Ύϳ ؟Ϙϳήσ ̵ήΒΟ ̶δ̯ فϴϟ ف̯ فϨϬ̯έ ؏Ύ٫ϭ Ύϳ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧϻ β̡΍ϭ ή̡ ؏ϮՍϬΑ Ϯ̯ 

̶δ̯ Ύϳ Ύ̳ ف٫Ύ̩ Ύϧ֐ϮϬ̩ ϡΎ̯ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ α˵΍ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϧ΁ β̡΍ϭ Ύϳ Ύ̳ ف٫Ύ̩ 

Ύϧ΁ ؐϴ٬ϧ β̡΍ϭ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟ϘΑΎγ فϨ̡΍ έϭΩΰϣ ̶΋Ϯ̯ 

Ջ̯ήՍγվ ؟ϘϠόΘϣ ٪ϭ ؟̰ϴσήθΑ -Ύ̳ 

ف΋ΎΟ Ύ̯ϭέ ؐϴ٬ϧ ̶ΘγΩήΑί Ϯ̯ α˵΍ ϮΗ Ύ̳ ف٫Ύ̩ Ύϧή̯ ϡΎ̯ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ـήγϭΩ ̶δ̯ Ύϳ ؟̴Ο ̵ήγϭΩ 

-ـή̯ 

ϞλΎΣ Ջϴ̰ϔϴՌήγ فϴϟ ف̯ ΪμϘϣ α΍ ή̯ ـΩ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ αΎ̡ ف̯ ϝϭ΍ ؟ΟέΩ ΞΟ ϝϮγ Ύϳ ΞΟ 

̶̴ϴ΋΍Ω΍ ̶̯ ΕήΟ΍ 

΍Ω΍ فγ ̶̳ΪϋΎϗΎΑ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ̶Ϥ٫ΎΑ ΪόΑ ؟Ϩϴ٬ϣ ̮ϳ΍ Ύϳ ΪόΑ ίϭέ ٪έΪϨ̡ Ύϳ έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ ˬ؟ϧ΍ίϭέ ΕήΟ΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ 

̶̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ̶ΗϮՍ̯ فγ ؐϴϣ ΕήΟ΍ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؐϴϣ ΕέϮλ ̶̯ فϧΎΟ ̨Ϩ٬̡ ϥΎμϘϧ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ فγ ؟Οϭ ̶̯ εέΎΑ -̶̳ 

ف΋ΎΟ ̶̯ 

-Ύ̳ 

ـή̯ Ζη΍ΩήΑ 

̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎμϘϧ ؟ϳ έϭ΍ ̶̳ ف΋ΎΟ 

ϢՍδγ ̶ϧέ΍ΪόϤΟ 

έ΍ΪόϤΟ 

Ζγ΍έ ٪΍ήΑ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ فϨ̡΍ فϨ̡΍ έϭΩΰϣ ϡΎϤΗ -ف٫ 

Ύϴ̳ ΎϳΩ ή̯ ϢΘΧ ؟ΤϤϟ ̶γ΍ ϡΎψϧ ̶ϧέ΍ΪόϤΟ έ΍ΪόϤΟ ٪ΩϮΟϮϣ 

̵Ω Ϯ̯ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ ̶̳ ف΋ΎΟ ̵Ω ؐϴ٬ϧ Ϯ̯ ̶ϧέ΍ΪόϤΟ έ΍ΪόϤΟ Ϣϗέ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ̶ϟ΍ϭ فϧΎΟ ̶̯ ΍Ω΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ -ف̳ 

ؐϳή̯ فσ ΕϼϣΎόϣ 

̶̳ Ϯ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ ̶΋Ύ٬Ϩϣ ϞΑΎϗ Ύϳ ̶δ̡΍ϭ ϞΑΎϗ Ϣϗέ ̶δϳ΍ ̶Ό̳ 

Ύ̳ ف٬̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧΎ̴ϟ ή̡ ϡΎ̯ Ϯ̯ ؏Ϯ̪Α έϭ΍ ؏ϮΗέϮϋ ؟τγ΍ϮϟΎΑ Ύϳ ؟τγ΍ϭϼΑ Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ̶δ̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ̶΋Ϯ̯ 

ΕέϮλ 

α΍ ϮΗ Ύ̳ ـή̯ Ύδϳ΍ ή̡ ̵έ΍Ω ؟ϣΫ έϭ΍ ٪ήτΧ فϨ̡΍ έϭΩΰϣ ή̳΍ Ϣ٫ΎΗ -Ύ̳ 

فϟ΍վ ΅ΎΑΩ ή̡ ϥ˵΍ فϴϟ ف̯ ΪμϘϣ α΍ ̶٫ ؟ϧ έϭ΍ 

Ώ 

Ν 

Ω 

٪ 

ϭ

̶οήϣ ̶̯ ϥ˵΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮΗέϮϋ ϮΟ ϑϼΧ ف̯ ٪΍ήΑήγ فδϳ΍ ف̯ فϧ΍ήϬ̳ -Ύ̳ 

ف̰γ ή̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ΖϳΎ̰η ϑϼΧ ف̯ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ٪ϭ ؐϴϣ 

-´ 

̶̳ ف̰γ ΎΟ ̶̯ ̶΋΍ϭέέΎ̯ ؐϴϣ ؏ϮΗέϮλ ΐγΎϨϣ Ύ̯ فϧΎ̴ϟ ή̡ ϡΎ̯ Ϯ̯ ؏Ϯ̪Α Ύϳ ϑϼΧ ف̯ 

Before passing on to the next subject it is necessary to state that the phrase ìhe shall 

not be retained forcibly provided he on applicationóógets a certificateóî in para (c) of the 

order has to be read with the other parts of the order so. as to. mean that the ìretentionî shall 

not be treated as ìdetentionî. Not only this the labourer shall not be ìretainedî in any manner 

which is otherwise unlawful. 

It is necessary at this stage to clarify certain aspects of this case. It is indeed 

necessary because, this being the first case of its nature, the procedural and other elements 

thereof are likely in due course, to come under discussion. 

(i) True a telegram has never been earlier made the basis by the Supreme 

Court of Pakistan for action, as in this case; but, there is ample support in the Constitution for 

the same. Under Article 184 (3) ìWithout prejudice to the provisions of Article 199, the 

Supreme Court shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the 

enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II is involved, 

have the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the said Article.î The questions 

of procedural nature relating to the entertainment of proceedings and/or cognizance of a 

case under this provision, have been dealt with in the case of Miss Benazir Bhutto (PLD 

1988 SC 416). The acceptance of a telegram in this case is covered by the said authority as 

also by the due extension of the principles laid therein, Such extension/s would depend upon 

the facts and circumstances of each case and nature of public interest involved and 

importance thereof. The element of ìpublic importanceî in this case now stands 

demonstrated by the resume (a .part only) of the proceedings, given earlier. 

It needs to be mentioned that in our Supreme Court, though letters and telegrams 

are sent to individual Judges, but it is not considered as an appropriate: and proper method 

of initiating proceedings. Sometimes it leads to embarrassment. Accordingly such an 

information has to go to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for initiating proceedings. In this case the 

telegram was addressed directly to him and he marked it to me. 

As to what other form/s of taking cognizance of a matter under Article 184 (3) are 

possible will depend upon the nature and importance thereof. 

(ii) The ìnatureî of the orders which can be passed in such cases is also indicated in 

Article 184 (3); that is: such as can be passed under Article 199. Even, if for the time being it 

be assumed that the ìnatureî of the order is confined only lo the orders under sub-clause (c) 

of Article 199(1) and not to the other orders under ìArticle 199î, it would be seen that any 

conceivable just and proper order can be passed in a case like the present one. The 

principle of extension involved in the relevant phrase used in Aft. 199(l)(c):îan order giving 

such directions to any person or authority-------as may be appropriate for the enforcement of 

the------î cannot be abridged or curtailed by the law. As to how far it can be extended will 

depend upon each case. 

It is so also because of the other provisions of the Constitution, the rules of this court 

and the principles and rules comprising the constitutional set-up of Pakistan. For instance, 

according to Article 187 (I) this court sometimes has to satisfy the dictates of ìcomplete 

justiceî. What goes with it is the subject of ample authority as well as of future application in 

given cases. When this power is exercised the court will have the necessary additional 

power to ìissue such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary-----î. Besides the 

binding effect of the judgment/order of this court on all other ìcourtsî when it ìdecidesî a 

question of law or it is based upon or enunciates a principle of law,, under Article 189; 

another provision Art. 190 gives a similar command to all executive and judicial ìauthoritiesî 

throughout Pakistanî. This is so as to act ìin aid of Supreme Courtî. When Art. 199(1) (c) is 

read together with Articles 187,189 and 190, as stated above, it becomes clear that in a fit 

--- 21 ---

case of enforcement of Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, power and 

competence to pass all proper/ necessary orders as the facts justify. 

(iii) The question as to whether this is a case of enforcement of Fundamental 

Right/s has not been raised. Everybody accepted that it is so. The provisions of Article 9 

relating to security of person; Article 11 in so far as it relates to forced labour, traffic in human 

beings and child labour; Article 14 relating to dignity of man; Article 15 ensuring freedom of 

movement; Article 18 relating to freedom of trade, business or profession; and, Article 25 

relating to equality, particularly in the protection of law and bar against discrimination on the 

basis of sex, as also the safeguards for women and children, amongst others, are applicable 

to the various aspects of the matter. However, it is a different matter that some Fundamental 

rights are more directly attracted than the others and some elements involved in any one of 

them are relevant while the others are meant for other situations. In view of lack of contest 

on this issue it is not necessary to go into a detailed discussion in this behalf. It is, however, 

remarked that for purposes of convenience of all concerned, it might be necessary to define 

the expression 'forced labour with illustrations of its different forms; in such a manner, so as 

to minimise any confusion about its real purport as also the resultant unproductive litigation. 

For the same purpose the other important elements in these Fundamental Rights, may be 

collected together and put in a self-contained code. It might cover all aspects of human 

dignity, deprivations and misery, including those rights in this behalf which are ensured, in 

addition, as basic human rights in Islam. This court has in the Shariat jurisdiction dealt with 

some of them. There is no bar in the Constitution to the inclusion in such law of these rights, 

in addition to the Fundamental rights contained in Chapter I Part II thereof. This 

comprehensive law should deal with the compulsory education of the classes concerned for 

making them aware of their rights; the detection of the infringement thereof as the duty of the 

State; and providing remedial mechanism also at the instance of the State whenever the will 

to assert or exercise them is lacking on the part of a citizen. These aspects of the 

enforcement of Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and other basic human 

rights ensured by Islam can by law be made also into an independent inalienable right, with 

self-operating mechanism for its enforcement as well. 

(iv) The last question needing some comment relates to the definitions in the 

ìBonded Labour Systemî and its various aspects including the prohibition of future loans in 

the form of Peshgis (̶̴θϴ̡) and recovery of the past ones. We have the example and 

experience made in India in this behalf. In my view it will not meet the expected success in 

Pakistan. A law which does not take care of all' elements of justice in the problem it deals 

with does not command acceptability. In this very case, the enquiry though limited has 

revealed that individual young people by selling their properties and/or by earnings from 

abroad through similar labour, advanced loans to the bhatta labour in lacs of rupees. The 

latter (labourers) fled away during the hearing of this case, treating it as their right ñ neither 

to work nor to return the money. Mr. Ihsanullah and his union insisted till the end that it is 

their right to do so. as according to Indian law the amount could be appropriated on account 

of what he thought the philosophy underlying practice of bonded labour. He however felt 

constrained to give some answer to the claim of honest well meaning persons who have thus 

been put to loss and who admittedly were new-comers to the trade and were not guilty of 

forced or bonded labour. He while accepting that it was injustice to them, insisted that 

without recovering the amounts from labourers, the State should compensate the owners. He 

could not justify the conduct of the labourers and their advisor (himself and his union) in this 

behalf on any principle. It is however implied in his response in general. But such like or 

similar revolutions and (heir philosophies are, at least for the time being, not efficacious 

methods of change, which needs also to be just ñ the Advocates appearing for the labour 

also agreed. His view if made as law in Pakistan, an Islamic State, it is likely to fail. One way 

out is that it is not necessary to enact new provisions in this behalf. The contracts whether of 

loans (̶̴θϴ̡) or of work should be tested on the touchstone of the provisions of the Contract 

--- 22 ---

Act; which already contains enough strong safeguards against illegal, immoral, 

unconscionable and other similar contracts and those against public policy. This court has 

recently given wide interpretation through Islamic connotations to these safeguards in the 

cases of Miss Benazir Bhutto and 'Ghulam Ali and two others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvií 

(CP-133-R of 1989 decided on 15-5-1989). However, the new code proposed to be enacted 

can use these provisions by 1 reference; of course, with additions and omissions as are 

necessary for the different situations of forced labour. It is also necessary to keep in view the 

conditions in Pakistan. In particular the people and their ethos, are different here than in the 

neighbouring country. For example the Governments in this case through their law officers 

have, by and large, shown sympathy with the labourer's cause; while the state governments 

in India do not show any such sentiments. See cases of Neeraja Choudhary and 'Bandhua 

Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and others (AIR 1984 SC (India) 1099 and 802) on the 

working of the law made there regarding bonded labour. The same cases have shown some 

more weaknesses in that law. The entrustment of some important functions to the' district 

administration has also proved unproductive. Care should be taken not to commit same 

mistakes here. The involvement of the Bar Councils, the local Bar Associations, the Press 

bodies and recognised social services; together with the labour departments both at Centre 

and Provincial levels can be involved here, with advantage. There are also other 

distinguishing features of serious nature which can be easily discovered if the judgments in 

the Indian jurisdiction on their experience of nearly one and a half decade are carefully 

studied with a view to avoid obvious pitfalls. Advantage can also be had by studying our 

judgments on similar subjects. For example, the judgment in land reforms case deals also 

with the nature of contracts between the landowners and the tenants (can mutatis mutandi 

also apply to agricultural labour force). The existing law has been tested on the touchstone of 

the Islamic Injunctions. (Qazilbash Wakf v. Chief Land Commissioner and others Shariat 

Appeals No.l of 1981 etc decided on 10-8-1989). This method would also provide the 

legitimate cover of Islamic injunctions to the new legislation in any future challenge on that 

basis. 

At the end it would be of further advantage if the note of caution contained in the 

judgment of concurrence rendered by Pathak, J. in the Indian case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha 

is kept in view. It is as follows : 

There is good reason to suppose that treating with public interest 

litigation requires more than legal scholarship and a knowledge of textbook 

law. It is of the utmost importance in such cases that when formulating a 

scheme of action, the court must have due regard to the particular 

circumstances of the case, to surrounding realities including the potential for 

successful implementation, and the likelihood and degree of response from 

the agencies on whom the implementation will depend. In most cases of 

public interest litigation, there will be neither precedent nor settled practice to 

add weight and force to the vitality of the court's action. The example of 

similar-cases in other countries can ' afford little support. The successful 

implementation of the orders of the court will depend upon the particular 

social forces in the backdrop of local history, the prevailing economic 

pressures, the duration of the stages involved in the implementation, the 

momentum of success from stage to stage, and acceptance of the court's 

action at all times by those involved in or affected by it.î 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 

ì67 There is great merit in the court proceeding and deciding an issue on 

the basis of strict legal principle and avoiding carefully the influence of purely 

emotional appeal. For that alone gives the decision of the court a direction' 

--- 23 ---

which is certain, and unfaltering, and that particular performance in legal 

jurisprudence which makes it a base for the next step forward in the further 

progress of the law. Indeed, both certainty of substance and certainty of 

direction are indispensable requirements ii the development of the law, and 

invest it with the credibility which commands public confidence in its 

legitimacy. 

ì68: This warning is of especial significance in these times, during a phase 

of judicial history when a few social action groups tend to show evidence of 

presuming that in every case the court must bend and mould its decision to 

popular notions of which way a case should be decided.î 

In the light of what has been stated above this matter stands disposed of in terms of 

agreed order dated 15-3-1989 already reproduced. There shall be no order as to costs. 

SCHEDULE I 

Report by Additional Advocate-General 

Under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme. Court of Pakistan, a meeting was held 

on 25th August, 1988 at 11-a.m. under the chairmanship of Mr. Khalil Ramdey, Advocate- 

General, Punjab, Lahore. The following attended the meeting:- 

(1) Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Additional Advocate-General. 

(2) Rev. Anwar Javed, a Christian representative. 

(3) Mian Abdul Sattar Najam, Advocate. 

(4) Mr. Pervaiz Shah, DSP, Chunian. 

(5) Mr. Aslam Zar, Secretary, District Bar Association, Lahore (was co-opted in this 

meeting on the request of the Bhatta Owners Association). 

(6) Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan Niazi, President, Brick-kiln Owners Association. . 

(7) Mr. Barkat Ali, General Secretary, Anjuman Malkan Bhatta, Lahore. 

(8) Mr. Muhammad Usman, General Secretary, Anjuman Malkan Bhatta, Punjab. 

(9) Mst. Aziz Begum, a labourer. 

(10) Mr. Kela Masih, a labourer. 

(11) Mr. Shahid Mahmood Nadeem, a journalist. 

(12) Mr. Ehsan Ullah, President, Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz. 

(13) Mr. Naubahar Khan, Asstt. Director, Labour. 

(14) Mr. M. A. Hameedi, Senior Law Officer, Labour Directorate. 

(15) Mr. Khalid Nasir Khan, Deputy Director, Labour. 

(16) Ch. Muhammad Zar, Director Labour Welfare. 

In the meeting the problems of the brick-kiln labourers were highlighted by Mr. Ehsan 

Ullah, President, Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz, Pakistan, Mr. Shahid Mahmood Nadeem, journalist, 

Kela Masih, a brick-kiln labourer in detail. Mr. Shoaib Khan Niazi, President, Anjuman 

Malkan Bhatta, discussed in detail the problems of brick-kiln owners in this regard. Ch. Zar 

Muhammad, Director Labour Welfare also discussed the problems of brick-kiln Industry, The 

meeting, continued till 2-30 p.m. and was adjourned for 27th August, 1988 at 2 p.m. to 

continue further discussions. 

Today the proceedings resumed again at 2-30 p.m. under the chairmanship of Mr. 

Khalil Ramdey, Advocate-General, Punjab. Mr. Shoaib Khan Niazi, President, Brick-kiln 

Owners Association could not participate as he sought two more days for the submission of 

his suggestions to eradicate the problems of this industry. Mr. Abdul Sattar Najam, Advocate, 

--- 24 ---

as also Ch. Muhammad Zar, Director Labour Welfare, did not attend the meeting because of 

their pre-occupations. The other participants deliberated on this issue and presented their 

suggestions. The meeting was finally concluded at 3-30 p.m. A final report would be 

submitted by the learned Advocate-General within two days. 

Respectfully submitted by: 

Dated: 27-8-1988. 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY 

--- 25 --- 

(Tanvir Ahmad Khan), 

Additional Advocate General 

Punjab, Lahore. 

MR. KHALIL RAMDEY, ADVOCATE-GENERAL. PUNJAB 

The Hon'ble Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter in pursuance of a 

telegram submitted by Darshan Masih (Rehmatey) and 20 others regarding the abduction, 

illegal detention and maltreatment of certain brick-kiln workers by the owners of such kilns. 

2. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab to 

trace out the persons concerned and to submit a report before this Hon'ble Court. The 

President of the Lahore High Court Bar Association was also directed to depute a senior 

member of the Bar for rendering assistance to the Hon'ble Court in the matter. 

3. Through an order dated 11-8-1988 this Hon'ble Court .was further pleased to 

direct the Advocate-General, Punjab to also be of assistance to the Hon'ble Court in this 

matter. 

4. In pursuance of these directions this humble servant of the Hon'ble Court 

contacted the concerned Police authorities and was informed that 21 persons who were the - 

alleged detenus, were involved in an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Bhai Pheru of District 

Kasur for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 406/420 of the 

Pakistan Penal Code. This FIR had been recorded at the instance of the owner of the brickkiln 

who was the employer of the aforesaid alleged detenus. The undersigned was also 

informed that some out of the aforesaid 21 persons had been arrested out of whom some 

had been released on bail by the Ilaqa Magistrate; that 3 of them were still under arrest with 

the Police whereas the remaining 5 had not been available to the police and thus had not 

been arrested. . . 

5. The undersigned directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kasur, the Deputy 

Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and the Deputy Inspector General of Police 

(Headquarters), Punjab to produce all the persons involved/arrested in pursuance of the 

aforesaid F.I.R. before the undersigned on 13-8-1988 at 8 a.m. for their onward production 

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 

6. The said persons were so produced on the said date. The Deputy Superintendent 

of Police, Pattoki, the Station House Officer of Police Station Bhai Pheru and the 

Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case also appeared before the Hon'ble Supreme Court 

where My Lord of the Supreme Court was pleased to continue the proceedings till late in the 

evening i.e. till after 4-30 p.m. on 13-8-1988 on account of the importance of the matter. After 

13-8-1988 the matter came up for hearing before My Lord of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 

certain other dates of hearing also wherein representatives of the brick-kiln owners, 

representatives of brick-kiln workers, representatives of Bhatta Mazdoor Union, 

representatives of the Labour Department of Government of Punjab also participated and 

made their respective submissions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. As was observed by My Lord of the Supreme Court, the matter was of great public 

importance involving breach and enforcement of fundamental rights. 

8. His Lordship had further directed that the undersigned should examine the matter 

and should hold a meeting with the representatives of brick-kiln owners, representatives of 

the labour union of brick-kiln workers, representatives of the Labour Department and 

religious scholars/leaders of Muslims and Christians. 

9. In pursuance of this direction of My Lord of the Supreme Court, the undersigned 

held long discussions on 25-8-1988 and 27-8-1988. The following gentlemen attended the 

aforesaid meetings:- 

(1) Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Lahore. 

(2) Ch. Muhammad Zar, Director Labour Welfare, Government of the Punjab, 

Lahore. 

(3) Mr. Khalid Nasir Khan, Deputy Director Labour Welfare, Government of 

the Punjab, Lahore. 

(4) Mr. Naubahar Khan, Assistant Director Labour Welfare, Government of 

the Punjab, Lahore. 

(5) Mr. M. A. Hameedi, Senior Law Officer, Labour Welfare Directorate, 

Government of the Punjab, Lahore. 

(6) Mr. Pervaiz Shah, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chunian. 

(7) Mian Abdul Sattar Najam, Advocate. 

(8) Mr. Aslam Zar, Secretary, District Bar Association, Lahore. 

(was co-opted in this meeting on the request of the Bhatta Owners 

Association). 

(9) Mr. Shahid Mahmood Nadeem, journalist. 

(10) Rev. Anwar Javed, Christian representative. 

(11) Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Khan Niazi, President, Brick-Kiln Owners 

Association. 

(12) Mr. Barkat Ali, General Secretary, Anjuman Malkan Bhatta, Lahore. 

(13) Mr. Muhammad Usman, General Secretary, Anjuman Malkan Bhatta, 

Punjab. . 

(14) Mr. Ehsan Ullah, President, Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz. 

(15) Kela Masih, labourer. 

(16) Mst. Aziz Begum, labourer. 

10. From the aforesaid discussions held by me and after having heard the views of 

various quarters concerned with this problem and having examined the voluminous material 

prepared by various agencies and organisations on this subject, the position in a nutshell 

which emerges is detailed hereunder:- 

Operattonal processes of a brick-kiln 

(a) To understand the problem in its true perspective it will be appropriate to 

first appreciate the operation of a brick-kiln. This operation to begin with 

involves digging/excavation of earth which earth is then mixed with water 

and a paste is prepared. From this earthen paste 'KATCHA' 'bricks are 

prepared with the help of moulds. This function has to be carried out by 

persons who are skilled for this job. This exercise commences in the 

evening with the digging of earth and mixing of earth with water and 

preparation of paste which continues till early hours of the night. The 

--- 26 ---

worker then has to get up early in the morning around dawn and start 

putting this paste into the moulds which process then continues till he has 

exhausted the earthen paste prepared by him. It may also be mentioned 

here that the brick-kiln owner has allocated to each worker a particular 

number of 'KATCHA' bricks to be prepared by him. The persons involved 

in this part of operation are called PATHAIRAS'. After these 'KATCHA' 

bricks are prepared the job of PATHAIRAS' is over. 

(b) These 'KATCHA' bricks are then carried to the actual kiln. This carriage is 

ordinarily done with the assistance of 'donkeys' and the persons: 

performing this function are called 'KUMHARS'. 

(c) The next process is the setting of the 'KATCHA' bricks in the kiln which 

has to be done in a very systematic and scientific manner and again 

requires skill. This process is called 'BHARAI and the persons involved in 

this' BHARAI' are called ëBHARAIASí. 

(d) Then follows the process where these 'KATCHA' bricks are then heated 

for their being baked as final bricks. This process is called 'JALAI' and the 

persons involved are called as 'JALAIAS'. The final process is called 

'NIKAS' which means carrying the bricks out of the kiln for onward 

transportation to the market. 

11. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP 

(a) My discussions and enquiries have revealed that the problem of 

malpractice in the brick-kiln Industry is confined mainly to the category of 

labourers who are TATHERAS'. The reason perhaps is that this is the 

category of workers who form the majority of workers in a brick-kiln and 

are even otherwise important for the production of bricks. 

(b) It has transpired that the brick-kiln owners do not directly employ the 

labour for their purposes and that the workers are engaged by the brickkiln 

owners through a middle-man who is called the 'JAMADAR'. The 

PATHERAS' are paid on work charge basis meaning thereby that they 

are paid according to the number of 'KATCHA' bricks that they have 

prepared. The rate today at which these ëPATHERASí are paid is Rs.35 

to 50 per thousand 'KATCHA' bricks. I am quoting this rate according to 

the payments being made by the brick-kilns around Lahore. Besides this 

payment which is made to the PATHERAS' the 'JAMADAR' is also paid 

some amount which is his commission for providing labour to the brickkiln 

owners and this commission is also based on the number of 

'KATCHA' bricks prepared by the 'PATHERAS'. The 'JAMADAR' does not 

only provide labour to the brick-kiln owners but is also responsible for 

their continuous working with the Brick-Kiln Owners and the 'JAMADAR' 

is the one who is responsible also for ensuring that these 'PATHERAS' 

do not run away and do not leave the employment of the concerned 

brick-kiln. 

(c) Another practice in this industry is that the workers in the brick-kiln 

especially the 'PATHERAS' are given 'ADVANCES' known as 'PESHGI', 

at the time of joining the particular brick-kiln. According to the prevailing 

practice, rendition of accounts is done at the end of each week. The 

number of 'KATCHA' bricks prepared by each 'PATHERA' is determined 

and the amount thus due to him is accordingly fixed. Ordinarily half of the 

amount found due to a 'PATHERA' is ìadjusted towards the 'PESHGI' 

advanced to him and the remaining half is paid to him in cash. According 

--- 27 ---

to the brick-kiln Owners, account of each 'PATHERA' is separately 

maintained and his signatures or thumb impressions are obtained on the 

settlement of accounts each week. According to the representatives of 

the workers, this rendition and settlement of accounts is a sham. The 

workers are obviously illiterate and they do not know what amounts have 

been written in the book and that the workers have no choice but to put 

their thumb impressions on such accounts. 

(d) Prima facie nothing seems to be wrong with the practice of ìPESHGIî and 

in fact on a cursory look it appears to be beneficial to the workers but in 

practice on lifting the veil, this is the practice which appears to be the root 

of almost all the evils in this industry. 

(e) According to the practice the 'PATHERAS' reside on the brick-kiln. The 

so-called accommodation is provided to them by the brick-kiln owners. It 

is also the practice that these 'PATHERAS' are required by the employers 

to reside with their families and children at the brick-kiln and the entire 

family including the small children get involved in the process of 

preparation of 'KATCHA' bricks. This in turn gives rise to the menace of 

child labour and I was provided with the photographs which are enclosed, 

which show that small children even of the age of less than 7 years are 

working on this job. 

(f) This requirement of the 'PATHERAS' families residing at the brick-kiln 

serves a two-fold purpose for the employer. First, that by hiring one 

person, the employer also gets the benefit of the labour of the entire 

family. Second, that the family members of the worker serve as hostages 

with the employer and as a guarantee for the 'PESHGI' and against the 

worker's escape from the employer. 

(g) The next menace emanating from this PESHGI system is that this 

ëPESHGIí is advanced to the worker not for his benefit but in fact to 

enslave him for the rest of his life and that this ëPESHGIí hardly ever 

comes to an end. It is an ëever-increasingí and 'never-diminishing' amount 

which goes on multiplying on one pretext or the other. Some of the basis 

on which this ëPESHGIí goes on increasing is the ëFINESí imposed on the 

workers and the 'KATOTIS' to which a worker renders himself liable. This 

ëPESHGIí is carried by the concerned worker all his life and on his death 

his family inherits this liability. 1 was told that at times, for the adjustment 

of this ëPESHGIí even the widows of late workmen are sold. Some chits 

were produced before me which are also enclosed which demonstrate 

the magnitude and the cruelty being perpetrated through this ëPESHGIí 

system. 

(h) Ordinarily, payment of advances for any item is considered to be a 

burden for the one who has to make these advances and blessing for the 

one to receive them. But in the present case, it is the other way round. 

Strangely enough, it is the employer who wishes to continue with this 

advance business and it is the recipient of the advance who wants to do 

away with this system. 

(i) No worker is free to leave the employment of his employer. If he wishes 

to leave the job then he is obliged to adjust the amount of ëPESHGIí 

outstanding against him which is always in thousands. Since this worker 

is not in a position to offer this kind of amount to his employer, he 

obviously has to take shelter under another employer who pays this 

--- 28 ---

amount of ëPESHGIí to the previous owner and takes this worker under 

his charge. This worker is thus traded like chattel by brick-kiln Owners all 

his life. If despite all these chains a worker still manages to escape, he is 

chased and hounded by the 'JAMADAR' who brings him back to the 

employer and in almost every case the escaped worker is traced and 

brought back. 

12. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

(a) The reasons for such a maltreatment of the workers in the brick-kilns 

appear to be embedded in history. The brick-kilns are situated away from 

the main cities and towns. They are scattered. Consequently the workers 

at the brick-kilns are not exposed to those blessings of the civilization 

which are available in the cities and the towns. Since they are scattered 

and are located at quite some distances from one another, the workers of 

one kiln have no contact with the workers of the other kilns. Because of 

this non-communication of the workers the labour force in the brick-kilns 

could never get together to voice better living and better working 

conditions for themselves. The number of workers at a particular brickkiln 

is not such which could pose any threat for the employer for 

compelling them to offer better working conditions to the workers. Being 

far away from the cities and towns the workers and even their children 

have apparently no access to basic amenities such as education and 

medical facilities. Most of the workers in this industry are Christians and 

even on this score being the minority they perhaps do not feel confident 

enough to challenge the maltreatment being meted out to them by the 

brick-kiln Owners who belong to the majority class with ail the resources, 

political involvements at their disposal. 

13. PROBLEMS. 

(a) As has been explained above the ëPESHGIí system and the 'JAMADAR' 

system appear to be the cause of most of the problems faced by the 

brick-kiln Workers. 

(b) The wages being paid to the workers need to be rationalised. 

(c) The working conditions for the labour in this industry need to be improved 

and brought at par with the working conditions of the other industries and 

establishments in the country. 

(d) The 'CHILD-LABOUR' on the Brick-Kilns needs to be stopped forthwith. 

(e) Social security benefits and medical facilities etc. need to be extended to 

these workers. 

(f) Provision for education of the workers' children also requires to be made. 

(g) The workers also deserve protection against physical violation at the 

hands of employers and ëJAMADARS' 

(h) An environment of physical security, social and family security needs to 

be ensured to the workers. 

(i) Benefit of labour laws needs to be extended to this labour force also. 

14. RECOMMENDATIONS 

(1) Legislation be made whereby:- 

--- 29 ---

(a) The system of 'BONDED LABOUR' not only in brick-kiln Industry but 

in all walks of life be abolished and the labour be freed and 

discharged from all their obligations to render bonded labour. 

(b) The 'ADVANCES' and 'PESHGIS 1 already made and all rights and 

liabilities accruing therefrom should stand extinguished. 

(c) Giving and receiving of all 'ADVANCES' (PESHGIS) be stopped and 

made an offence punishable under the law. 

(2) Prohibition against 'CHILD LABOUR' should be strictly enforced inter alia 

in the brick-kiln Industry. 

(3) Provisions of Factories Act, the Minimum Wages Ordinance, and other 

laws attracted to this industry should be strictly enforced and provisions 

of labour laws including the Social Security Ordinance should be 

extended to workers of the brick-kiln Industry. 

(4) For ensuring implementation of these recommendations Supervisory 

Committees should be constituted under the law which committees 

should consist of representatives of the District Administration, the 

Labour Department, the elected representatives of the area, religious 

leaders of Muslims and Christians and representatives of the employees 

and representatives of the employers. These committees should be set 

up at Tehsil levels. 

(5) A commission at the national level also needs to be set up to go into the 

details of the problems and to suggest further remedial measures not 

only for the brick-kiln Industry but in all the areas where the bonded 

labour is in vogue. 

(6) The Police Department be instructed not to register cases involving the 

brick-kiln employers and the employees without the prior information and 

permission of the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district. 

Dated:31-8-1988. Ends: As referred above. 

--- 30 --- 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: 

(KHALIL RAMDEY), 

Advocate-General, Punjab. 

Note: I am informed by Mr. T. A. Khan, Addl A.-G. that the reports and articles on the 

subject by various agencies; the decided cases from Indian Jurisdiction and the legislation 

made by the Indians on the subject have already been placed before My Lord. The same are 

therefore not being added with his report:: 

REPORT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE LHCBA 

It is respectfully submitted to this Honourable Court as under:- 

Sd.(Illegible) 

1. That the President, Lahore High Court Bar Association forwarded a letter from the 

Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court directing the President of' LHBA to assign a 

senior member of the Bar to handle the above mentioned matter and submit a report 

of the same to the Honourable Judge of the Supreme Court. 

2. That I undertook to prepare the report based on a telegram enclosed with the letter 

which was my lead to identify the sender of the telegram. In this regard I contacted 

Mrs. Asma Jahangir, Advocate who gave me some background of the case in

question but did not know the whereabouts and address of the sender of the 

telegram. 

3. That in order to appraise their Lordships of the entire matter and circumstances that 

exist behind this telegram I considered it my duty as an officer of this Honourable 

Court to. prepare the present report as best as I could, thus towards this end I have 

contacted the persons and institutions mentioned below. 

(a) I. G. Police 

(b) DIG Police Jahangir Mirza 

(c) ?? 

(d) Asma Jahangir, Advocate, Lahore 

(e) Rana Salim, Advocate, Chunian Bar Association. 

(f) Ehsanullah Khan, Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz, 1-Dyal Singh Mansion, The Mall, 

Lahore. 

4. Following my detailed interviews with the abovementioned persons I have gone 

through the material provided to me by them and obtained some material myself 

through the press and the criminal branch of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. I am 

placing this material before his Lordship. This material includes:- 

(a) Habeas corpus petitions filed in Lahore High Court, Lahore since 15-5-1988 

with annexures, reports of bailiffs, and orders of the Honourable High Court. 

(b) Copies of FIR'S filed by bhatta owners on the labourers subsequent to their 

release from the Honourable High Court, Lahore. 

(c) Media clippings and reports on bonded labour in brick-kiln Industry. These 

reports include: 

(i) Press clippings and write-ups. 

(ii) Report on brick-kiln by Women's Division, Government of Pakistan. 

(iii) Report on special inquiry ordered by DMLA, Headquarter Secticn-5, 

Rawalpindi, Martial Law Zone-A. . 

(iv) Report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. 

5. That on reading these reports/material and after meeting with the abovementioned 

persons, as I was given this task by this Honourable Court, I personally visited some 

bhatta sites at Bhai Pheru, District Kasur to further authenticate and verify the 

allegations made so far and to discern the magnitude of the bonded labour problem. 

However, I am in no position to give any verification but place the facts before your 

Lordships. 

6. In order to understand the entire complexion of this social and legal problem, I 

enclose some legal measures taken by the government of India in this matter where 

similar situation exists. 

7. In view of the above, I would like to humbly submit to their Lordships that the 

telegram may not be treated as a single and isolated incident but be regarded as a 

part of a whole legal and social problem that exists in Pakistan i.e. bonded labour 

and is particularly rampant in the brick-kiln Industry where the Honourable Courts 

have found illegal detention in a number of cases but where the violators of this law 

have not been proceeded with in accordance with law. 

--- 31 ---

8. That regarding the present telegram the facts are submitted before your Lordships as 

under. 

(a) That the sender of the telegram is one Rehmat Masih s/o Ismail who was a 

Petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 266/H/88 fixed before his Lordship Mr. Justice 

Fazal Karim. 

(i) That his Lordship ordered that a bailiff of the Court be deputed to produce the 

detenus numbering 89 before the Honourable Court. 

(ii) That amongst the 89 detenus, were the petitioner's family members, women 

and 31 children. 

(iii) That on 16:5.88 (the next day) the bailiff submitted his report to his Lordship 

Mr. Justice Fazal Karim which confirmed their illegal detention. The bailiff 

also reported ìsix alleged detenus namely, Aslam Masih, Polia Masih, Boota 

Masih, Sardar Masih, Anwar Masih and Jamal Masih were given severe 

beating by the respondent's men just before my arrivalî and they were 

recovered from a haveli of animals adjacent to brick-kiln. They were confined 

in a room. Their condition was very miserable at the time of recovery.î 

The Honourable Court satisfied of the illegal detention ordered the release of 

the detenus, however the Honourable Court did not give any direction of filing 

cases against the respondents. Subsequently the detenus were medically 

examined. 

(iv) That subsequent to this habeas corpus petition five more petitions were filed 

out of which two were dismissed by his -Lordship Justice Sheikh Riaz and 

the bailiff was not deputed to recover the detenus. Instead ASI, Thana 

Manga Mandi, Lahore was directed to produce the detenus. The honourable 

Justice Sheikh Riaz observed. 

ìOn the direction of this Court, the ASI has visited the brick-kiln and found the 

detenus are not in illegal confinement. In fact, this is usual dispute which arises with 

the brick-kiln owners. The labourers take advances and then (hey do not want to 

work and under the garb of the order of this court they are recovered and get licence 

to work wherever they like. In these circumstances, the habeas corpus petition is not 

competent and the same is hereby dismissed.î 

Dated 10-7-88 in Cr. Misc. No. 374/H/88. 

9. That the present petitioners, senders of the telegram were released and 

subsequently it is alleged that one Sadiq Masih was picked up by Riasat Ali Shah, 

Sub-Inspector CIA Chunian, three constables and Mr. Rao Qayum (Bhatta owner) 

along with companions in broad daylight from Chunian where several witnesses were 

present, this incident has also been alleged as correct by Advocates at Chunian Bar 

including, Rana Salim, Sheikh Ashfaq and Sardar Salim. 

10. It is alleged that Sadiq Masih was kept under illegal detention at the Bhatta of Rao 

Qayum, physically beaten and tortured and then later it is alleged that he was falsely 

implicated in case F.I.R. No. 307/88 registered with Police Station Bhai Pheru where 

he was also tortured at the police station. 

11. That subsequently five more FIRs were made against Sadiq Masih FIRs No. 

319/88,328/88, and another a few days later. 

12. A complaint of the abduction is also filed with SSP Kasur which was marked to DSP 

Chunian but no action has been taken on this. (Annexure 'B' enclosed) 

--- 32 ---

13. That it is alleged that on 27-6-88,17 more detenus who were released by (the court 

were abducted from Sialkot from the Bhatta of Chaudhry Rashid, Thana Badyana, 

and further alleged that ASI Yunus, Rao Qayum (Bhatta owner) and his companions 

abducted the alleged abductees in a Mazda Wagon LHB 3693 at 03-00 a.m. early 

morning. It is further claimed that in all twenty persons came to abduct the detenus. 

14. That on the same day (i.e. 27.6.88) a telegram was sent by the relatives of the 

alleged abductees to Deputy Inspector-General Police, Mr. Justice Fazal Karim, the 

Governor Punjab, Chief Minister Punjab and Chief Justice of Lahore High Court 

Lahore (Annexure 'C'). 

15. That on 17-7-88 the office of Superintendent Criminal issued a notice to Rehmat 

Masih to appear before the officer on special duty (judicial). This notice was intimated 

to counsel for the Petitioner (Rehmat Masih), Mrs. Asma Jahangir on 23-7-88. In the 

meanwhile two more persons were allegedly abducted around 20-7-88 and hence 

Rehmat Masih along with his cousin Darshan Masih gave another set of telegrams, 

one of which was received by the Honourable Supreme Court. 

16. That on 11-7-88 one Meher Masih also gave an application to D.I-G Lahore 

regarding the same abduction. Number of the application is 389-CC DIG, dated 11-7- 

88. (Annexure 'D'). This matter was marked to SSP, Lahore. 

17. That Mrs. Asma Jahangir, counsel for the Petitioner (Rehmat Masih) has no further 

information on the whereabouts of her clients. 

18. That the Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz was contacted by me who alleged that one of the 

abductees namely daughter-in-law of Rehmat Masih, Bashiran Bibi escaped from the 

Bhatta of Yasin Pehlwan, Bhai Pheru and narrates that the women folk of the 

abductees were sold to Yasin Pehlwan by ASI Yunus, Bhai Pheru, Rao Riaz and 

Rao Qayum (Bhatta owners) whereas the menfolk namely Rehmat, (the author of the 

telegram) Yakub, and Liaqat husband of Bashiran are cither illegally confined at the 

Bhatta of Abdul Qayum or are in police custody. 

19. That it is also alleged that the womenfolk have been physically abused in many 

cases. 

20. The upshot of this entire scenario being gross allegations which require investigation 

at a high level as influential persons are involved and it is claimed that they are aided 

and given full co-operation by the police. 

21. That while concluding my report I submit before this Honourable Court that only longterm 

measures can solve this problem as bonded labour seems widespread. 

22. That after having made this investigation I would humbly submit that bonded labour 

is prohibited by the Constitution of Pakistan but the punishment for this offence under 

the Pakistan Penal Laws is only one month. 

23. That since 1971 The Factories Act applies to brick-kiln industries in Punjab but is not 

being enforced. 

Dated 13August, 1988. 

REPORT II BY ABDUS SATTAR NAJAM, ADVOCATE 

It is respectfully submitted: 

BRIEF NOTE: 

I have already brought on the record of this Hon'ble Court documents relevant to the matter 

in issue as Annexures to my report submitted earlier on 16-8-1988. A separate report 

--- 33 ---

prepared by a Martial Law team on the petition of one Mr. Gul Zarin of Rawalpindi was also 

included among the Annexures. In the last para of the report, the Enquiry Team after making 

spot secret and open enquiries and after. examining the relevant documents, had made 

certain recommendations. The recommendations speak for the increase in the wages by 

10% of the cost of the bricks which was then determined at Rs.450 to Rs.550 per one 

thousand. It further recommended for medical facilities and abolition of loans/advance 

system and the prohibition of child labour and some compensation for those disabled during 

the work. These recommendations do not provide a solution to the problem being inadequate. 

On the last date of hearing, your Lordship was pleased to appoint a Committee which 

included the President of Bhatta Owners Association. The meeting of the Committee was 

held in the office of the Advocate-General Punjab which was presided over by him on ____.1 

All the members appointed, attended the meeting. The bhatta owners came to the meeting 

with their Legal Adviser. In the meeting, the following facts stood established, rather almost 

admitted between the owners and the representatives of the labourers:- 

(a) The owners admitted the transfer of the labour as against payment of the 

loans/advances (PAISHGI) obtained by them. 

(b) Minor children, and ladies of the family work as one unit with their family 

head. 

(c) The ladies and children reside at the bhattas. 

(d) No education and medical facilities are made available over there. 

(e) Those of labour force who quit the bhatta without making payment of the 

advance are apprehended and brought back to the brick-kiln. The release of 

the labourers is strictly conditioned to the prior payment of the advances: 

(f) The wages paid to the labour till today is maximum Rs.35 to Rs.40 per one 

thousand bricks which in the coming years, according to the owners, would 

be increased upto Rs.50 per thousand bricks. 

The facts which were brought to the notice of the members of the committee 

and were controverted by owners are in the following terms:- 

(g) The representative of the labour Mr. Ihsan Ullah Khan showed in the open 

meeting certain documents relating to the various bhattas showing as to how 

the advances multiply. He also placed on the table the written declarations of 

bhatta owners showing the amount of liability incurred by a labourer/unit and 

carrying an offer that anyone who could pay the same, could take the labour 

to his place. When confronted with these documents, the representative of 

the owners did not make any comment. 

(ii) OWNERS' CONDUCT: 

(a) During the meeting, I requested the representative of the owners to help us in 

recommending to this Hon'ble Court a unanimous solution which may include 

their grievances and solutions to them and (he grievances of the labour force 

and their solutions. The grievance at the loudest voiced by the representative 

of the owners was the filing of habeas corpus petitions and they held the 

Labour Mahaz responsible for that. They had lot of other grievances against 

the Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz. According to them, it was they who had shown 

the path of courts to the labour which created a lot of problems for them. 

They wished and hoped from us to make some recommendations which 

could place a ban on the activities of the Bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz. 

(b) No concrete proposals could be adopted acceptable to the representative of 

the labour and the representative of the owners. 

--- 34 ---

(1) WAGES: 

Before making my proposals, I would place before this Hon'ble Court the 

problems which I have visualised during all these days: 

The question of wages is a pivotal issue. The illiterate and landless classes of the rural 

society, having no other job to meet their daily life requirements, come to Bhatta owners. 

They come in a family unit. The admitted wages till today paid to labour are Rs.35 to Rs.40 

for 1,000 bricks which, according to the bhatta owners, will be raised to Rs.50 per thousand 

bricks in future. The estimated cost of production of 1,000 bricks comes to Rs.220 to; Rs.230 

and the sale price today is about Rs.650 to Rs.700 per thousand. The profit seems to be 

enormous. The labour force when calculated on daily basis, by producing 1,000 bricks per 

day, gets maximum Rs.5 per day. After adjustment of advance, etc. their take-home is not 

more than Rs.2.50 a day. This is highly unjust. There should be some relationship between 

the profit and the wages oil the labour. This kind of wages even do not work as subsistence 

allowances for the labour force. 

(2) ADVANCE SYSTEM: 

The advance system working within the labour force of bhattas is certainly a cruel and 

vicious circle. As submitted above, in most of the cases, the first advance is the money which 

is paid by their new owner to their last owner, This money liability is in many cases inherited. 

The increase in the advance is not necessarily made by actual payment. The system of fine 

in case of non-payment within the directed time by the owner fattens the advances. The few 

photo copies of the documents evidencing this position are attached with this report. The 

only cure to this seems to be the abolition of advance system altogether and the payment of 

wages to the labour force on daily basis to be fixed under the Minimum Wages Act. 

(3) LACK OF MEDICAL FACILITIES & EDUCATION: 

(i) In order to provide the medical facilities and the facilities of education to the children 

of the labour, the application of Factories Act in letter and spirit to the brick-kiln 

industry may help a lot to solve this problem. 

(ii) Out of the numerous problems, noted above, there is one, the most important 

deserving reference i.e. the counting of the bricks after their making. At most of the 

bhattas, instead of 1,000 bricks, the owner will receive 1,020 bricks in katcha shape 

to account for any loss or damage likely to occur during transportation to the kiln. The 

loss/damage to the bricks by rains, etc. is shared by the labour by 50%. This again is 

unjustified. It may be mentioned here that in the brick-kiln industry, there are five 

kinds of labour force which is detailed below:- 

(a) Those who make the bricks are named as PATHAIRAS. 

(b) Those who transport katcha bricks to brick-kiln are known as KUMHARS, 

(c) Those who stack the bricks in the kiln are known as BHARAI WALAS, 

(d) Those who bake the bricks by giving coal, etc. are known as JALAI WALAS, 

and ; 

(e) Those who, after the baking of the bricks, take them out are known as NIKASI 

WALAS. 

All the above categories are almost facing the same problems. 

(4) LEGISLATIVE MEASURES: 

The Constitution of Pakistan in its Articles No.11, 14(1), 15,18, 24, 35, 36 and 37 has 

attempted to look after the situation. In P.P.C, sections 367, 368, 370,371 and 374 have 

provided punishment in case of violation of the rights noted above. This is not enough. The 

--- 35 ---

execution of law certainly is paramount than its legislation. In my opinion, the execution of 

the laws which do already exist on the juris corpus of the country, if made by an agency 

working under the High Court, the problems of the labour force may have some solution. We 

are not deficient in the laws. We are suffering from the lack of their enforcement. 

(5) PRACTICAL MEASURES: 

I, after analysing the situation, see that the taking of whole of the family to a brick-kiln 

causes a number of problems for the labour force of bhattas. They become vulnerable to the 

pressure of the bhatta owners. The children and other family members are always a very 

strong security in their hand to make the labour force to dance to their tunes. After the work, 

the labour force is made to remain within the fold of brick-kiln. Even if they want to leave, 

they cannot quit the place being so many in number and- additionally being guarded. In case 

one male member, by a desperate attempt comes out, he is again pulled back by the family 

ties as their family is taken as hostages. The instances of such practice have come to the 

notice of the members of the committee. The children and the women labour are made to 

work due to their presence at the spot. The following measures may do a lot for the labour in 

solving their problems:- 

(1) The labour Force should be employed in their individual capacities and not employed 

in labour units under one family head. 

(2) The labour should not be paid on the basis of the number of bricks but be paid on 

daily basis. 

(3) The government should take steps for constituting new schemes like 5 Marla 

Schemes, etc. to make a colony of the labour force of bhattas at a spot, close to the 

cluster of bhattas. 

(4) In the ABADIS in order to improve the lot of the bhatta labour force, schools and the 

dispensaries may be installed. That will enable the coming generation of the said 

labour to resort to some other vocations. 

(5) By the establishment of village ABADIS, it will not be possible for the bhatta owners 

to treat the labour force and their families as bondage labour. 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY BHATTA MAZDOOR MAHAZ 

--- 36 --- 

(Sd.) 

(MIAN ABDUL SATTAR NAJAM) 

Advocate, 

4-Mozang Road, Lahore. 

ՊέϮ̡έ ̶̯ έΪλ ف̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ ـέΎΑ ف̯ έ΍ί ΖϟΎΣ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

Ν΁ ΖΤΗ ف̯ ϡΎψϧ ̶ϟΎμΤΘγ΍ ϢϳΪϗ ϮΟ ؐϴ٫ ήΒϴϟ վտϧΎΑ ̶Ϩόϳ έϭΩΰϣ فϟ΍ϭ فϧή̯ ΖϘθϣ ̵ήΒΟ ؐϴϣ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

فΗή̯ ϡΎ̯ Ε΍έ ϥΩ ΖΤΗ ف̯ ϝΎμΤΘγ΍ήΒΟ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ή̡ ؏ϮՍϬΑ ̱Ϯϟ ؟ϳ ؐϴ٫ έϮΒΠϣ ή̡ فϧέ΍ΰ̳ ̶̳Ϊϧί ̶δϴΟ ؏ϮϣϼϏ ̶ϬΑ 

لؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ ΖΧϭήϓ ̮Η ήϴϤθ̯ Ω΍ί΁ έϭ΍ ؏ϮΑϮλ ـήγϭΩ ΕΎϗϭ΍ ήΜ̯΍ έϭ΍ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ـήγϭΩ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϳ΍ ήϬΑ ̶̳Ϊϧί έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ 

΍ΪΧ ϕϮϠΨϣ α΍ ΩϮΟϭΎΑ ف̯ فϧή̯ ΖϨΤϣ ΪϳΪη ̶̳Ϊϧί ϡΎϤΗ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟϮ٫ ϡΎϤΗ ̶̳Ϊϧί ̶̯ ؏ϭέΎ̩ فΑ ϥ΍ ؐϴϣ ΖΤϓϭήΧϭ ΪϳήΧ ̶γ΍ 

؟ϠΑΎϘϣ Ύ̯ έ΍ί ΖϟΎΣ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ لف٫ ΎΘϠϣ Ϫ̪̯ فϴϟ ف̯ فϨ̢ϧΎϫվ ϦΗ ̶٫ ؟ϧ έϭ΍ ̶ΗϮ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ 

ΐϴμϧ ̶Ռϭέ ف̯ ήϬΑ Ջϴ̡ Ϯ̯ 

ؐϴϣ ̮Ϡϣ ؟ϘΒσ έϭ΍ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ٪ΪϧΎϤδ̡ ٪ΩΎϳί فγ ϥ΍ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ ΎΘ̰γΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ فγ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ف̯ ΖόϨλ ̵ήγϭΩ ̶δ̯ ̶̯ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ 

لؐϴ٬ϧ ΩϮΟϮϣ 

η έϭΩΰϣ ϡΎϤΗ ٪ϭ فϟ΍ϭ فϧή̯ ϡΎ̯ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ϡΎ̯ ؐϴϣ ϞϤϋ ف̯ فϧΎϨΑ ՋϨϳ΍ ϮΟ ؐϴ٫ ϞϣΎ 

لـήϴϬΘ̡ ˱ϼΜϣ

لؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ՋϠ̡ Ջϟ΍ ̮Η فϧϮ٫ ̮θΧ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ έΎϴΗ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ ̶̪̯ فγ ̶Όϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ϳ 

لؐϴ٫ فΗΎ̪Ϩ٬̡ ̮Η ̶ϨϤ̩ ̶̯ ؟ՍϬΑ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ ̶̪̯ فγ ΩΪϣ ̶̯ ؏ϮϫΪ̳ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ϳ 

فγ ΩΪϣ ̶̯ ؟Ϡ΋Ϯ̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ΍ ؟̯ΎΗ ؐϴ٫ فΘϬ̯έ فγ ΐϴΗήΗ ؐϴϣ ̶΋ϻϮ̳ ̶̯ فՍϬΑ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ 

̶̪̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ϳ 

--- 37 --- 

ـήϴϬΘ̡ 

έΎ٬Ϥ̯ 

فϟ΍ϭ ̶΋΍ήϬΑ 

لف̰γΎΟ ΎϳΎ̡̰ 

ˬفϟ΍ϭ ̵ήϴ̯ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ٪ϭϼϋ ف̯ α΍ لؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ϡΎ̯ Ύ̯ فϨϟΎ̰ϧ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ ؟ΘΨ̡ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ϳ فϟ΍ϭ ̶γΎ̰ϧ 

؟̰ΒΟ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ έϭΩΰϣ فϟ΍ϭ فϠ΋Ϯ̯ ̵ήΘδϣ 

لؐϴ٫ فΘϬ̯έ ΕέΎ٬ϣ ̶̯ فϧή̯ ؟ΘΨ̡ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ فγ ̱΁ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ϝϭήՍϨ̯ Ϯ̯ ̱΁ ̶̯ ؟ՍϬΑ 

لؐϴ٫ فΘ٫έ ؐϴϣ ؏Ϯϴ̴ϬΟ ̶ϓΎϨϣ ف̯ ΖΤλ ϥΎψϔΣ έϭ΍ ϝΎΣ ؟ΘδΧ ٪ΪϴγϮΑ ̶΋Ϯ٫ ̶ϨΑ ̶Ϩ̡΍ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭΩΰϣ ϡΎϤΗ ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ 

˱ΎΒϳήϘΗ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϳ΍ 

فγ ϭΩ ˱ΎΒϳήϘΗ Ω΍ΪόΗ 

̶̯ ؏Ϯ̪Α έϭ΍ ؏ϮΗέϮϋ ˬΩήϣ Ω΍ήϓ΍ Ϟ̯ ف̯ βΟ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ϡΎ̯ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ βϴΗ ف̯ ؏ϭήϴϬΘ̡ ل1 

فΗή̯ ΖϘθϣ ϞδϠδϣ ̮Η فՍϨϬ̳ ٪έΎϬՌ΍ فγ ٪έΪϨ̡ ΎΒϳήϘΗ ؐϴϣ ϥΩ ٪΍ήϤ٫ ف̯ ؏Ϯ̪Α ˬ؏ϮΗέϮϋ ̶Ϩ̡΍ ـήϴϬΘ̡ لف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ αΎ̡̪ϮγϭΩ 

لؐϴ٫ 

̶̯ ؏Ϯ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فδΟ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ فϫΪ̳ ϦϴΗ αΎ̡ ف̯ έΎ٬Ϥ̯ ή٫ لف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ ̮Η ٪έΪϨ̡ فγ αΩ Ω΍ΪόΗ ̶̯ ؏ϭέΎ٬Ϥ̯ ل2 

لف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ ̮Η Ϯγ فγ ϪՌΎγ Ω΍ΪόΗ ̶̯ Ω΍ήϓ΍ Ϟ̯ ف̯ ؏ϭέΎ٬Ϥ̯ ˬفϫΪ̳ ϦϴΗ έϭ΍ ̶ϣΩ΁ ̮ϳ΍ ̶Ϩόϳ لؐϴ٫ فΘ٬̯ ̱ϮΟ ؐϴϣ ϥΎΑί 

لؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ Ω΍ήϓ΍ έΎ̩ ˱ΎΒϳήϘΗ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϳ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΘϬ̯έ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ ̶̪̯ ؐϴϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ϳ 

فΌϴϠΟ 

فϟ΍ϭ ̶΋΍ήϬΑ 

ϥ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ ΩΎΑ΁ 

ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ ٪έΪϨ̡ فγ αΩ ˱ΎΒϳήϘΗ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴ٫ فΘϟΎ̰ϧ فδ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ ̶̡̰ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ˬέϭΩΰϣ ؟ϳ فϟ΍ϭ ̶γΎ̰ϧ 

لؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ϡΎ̯ ̶ϬΑ ف̪Α ΕΎγ ف̯ 

Ζϗϭ ̮ϳ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ϝϭήՍϨ̯ Ϯ̯ ̱΁ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΘϟ΍վ ؟Ϡ΋Ϯ̯ ؐϴϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟ϳ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ فΌϠΟ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ فΌϠΟ ˬفϟ΍ϭ ̶΋ϼΟ 

Ύ̯ Ϣδϗ ̶δ̯ Ϯ̯ ϥ΍ ف٫ ΎΘϳΩ ̶ՌϮϳվ ف̯ ϡ΍έ΁ ̶δ̯ ήϴϐΑ فՍϨϬ̳ ٪έΎΑ ϞδϠδϣ ؐϴϣ ϥΩ˯ΎϴϠΟή٫ ؐϴ٫ فΘϳΩ ̶ՌϮϳվ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ فΌϠΟ ϭΩ ؐϴϣ 

فϧή̯ ϡΎ̯ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮Η ϝΎγ αΩ فγ ΕΎγ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ ـϭήγ ف̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ΎΗϮ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ ϞλΎΣ φϔΤΗ ̶΋Ϯ̯ Ύϳ βϧ΅ϻ΍ 

Ջϴ٫ 

لف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̲ϟ ̵έΎϤϴΑ έϭ΍ ̶΋Ϯ̯ Ύϳ ϕΪ̢Η Ϯ̯ فΌϠΟ έϭΩΰϣ فϟ΍ϭ 

ف̯ ̶οήϣ 

̶̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ έϭΩΰϣ ̶ϬΑ ̶΋Ϯ̯ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ ϝΎμΤΘγ΍ ΎδϴΟ ̮ϳ΍ Ύ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ف̯ ϡΎδϗ΍ ϡΎϤΗ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ 

̶Ϩόϳ ϥϮϧΎϗ ؟ϳ لف٫ ΎΘ̰γή̯ ̵έϭΩΰϣ ΖϨΤϣ ؟̴Ο ̵ήγϭΩ ̶δ̯ ̶٫ ؟ϧ έϭ΍ ΎΘ̰γΎΟ ؐϴ٬ϧ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ـήγϭΩ ̶δ̯ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ήϴϐΑ 

لف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̵Ω ΍ΰγ ΖΨγ Ϯ̯ فϟ΍ϭ فϧ֐ϮΗ Ϯ̯ α΍ έϭ΍ ف٫ ̵έΎΟ ؐϴϣ ̮Ϡϣ ـέϮ̡ ϥϮϧΎϗ Ύ̯ Ϟ̴ϨΟ 

ؐϴ٬ϧ΍ έ΍Ωήϴ̳ΎΟ Ύϳ ؐϴ٫ فΗΎΟϮ٫ έΎ̰η Ύ̯ ̵έΎ̳ίϭέ فΑ ؐϴϣ ؏ϮΗΎ٬ϳΩ ϮΟ لف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ فγ ؏ϮΗΎ٬ϳΩ ϖϠόΗ Ύ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

έϮΒΠϣ ή̡ فϧή̯ ΖϘθϣ ̵ήΒΟ ή̡ ؏ϮՍϬΑ ή̯΁ ̲ϨΗ فγ ̶θ̯ ؟ϗΎϓ έϭ΍ ̲Ϩϧ ̭ϮϬΑ 

٪ϭ ϮΗ ؐϴ٫ فΘϳΩή̯ ϞΧΩ فΑ فγ ؏ϮϨϴϣί 

فΗή̯ ϝϮλϭ ή̡ έϮσ ف̯ ̶̴θϴ̡ ̶Ϩόϳ έΎϫΩ΍ Ϣϗέ ̶γ ήϴϘΣ فϴϟ ف̯ فϨ̪Α فη ̶θ̯ ؟ϗΎϓ έϭΩΰϣ Ϫ̪̯ ؐϴϣ˯΍ΪΘΑ΍ لؐϴ٫ فΗΎΟϮ٫ 

ήϴϘΣ ؟ϳ ΩϮΟϭΎΑ ف̯ α΍ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ؐϴ٫ فΗ΍ϮՍ̯ Ϯ̯ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϒμϧ Ύ̯ ΕήΟ΍ έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ ̶Ϩ̡΍ فϴϟ ف̯ ̶δ̡΍ϭ ̶̯ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ 

α΍ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ 

؟̯ ΎΘ٫έ ؐϴ٬ϧ Ϧ̰Ϥϣ ؟ϳ فΌϟ ف̯ ؟ΗΎϬ̯ ̶Ϩόϳ ٪΍ήΑήγ ف̯ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ ΪόΑ ؟λήϋ Ϫ̪̯ -ف٫ 

̶ΗΎΟ ϫ֑Α ϝΎγ ή٫ ف΋ΎΠΑ ̶̯ فϧϮ٫ Ϣ̯ Ϣϗέ 

؟ϳ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ ϦΑ ϡϼϏ فϴϟ ف̯ ؟θϴϤ٫ ؟θϴϤ٫ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ϳ Ρήσ α΍ έϭ΍ ـή̯ β̡΍ϭ Ϣϗέ ؟ϳ ̶̯ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ فγ ΖϨΤϣ ̶Ϩ̡΍ ٪ϭ 

؟ΑϮϠτϣ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ ̶Ϩόϳ ؟ΗΎϬ̯ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ؟̯ ف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ αΎδΣ΍ ؟ϳ ΐΟ Ϯ̯ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ لف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶Ϡ̩ ̶ΗϮ٫ ϞϘΘϨϣ ϞδϧέΩ Ϟδϧ ̶ϣϼϏ 

؟ՍϬΑ ϮΟ ف٫ ΎΘϳΩ ՊΎ̯ ̶̩ή̡ ̶̯ فΗΎϬ̯ α΍ ٪ϭ ϮΗ ف٫ ̶Ό̳Ϯ٫ Ώ΍ήΧ ΖΤλ ̶̯ α΍ Ύϳ Ύ٫έ ؐϴ٬ϧ ϞΑΎϗ ف̯ فϧή̯ έΎϴΗ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ 

̶Ϩ٫Ϋ έϭ΍ ΖϳΫ΍ ̶΋Ύ٬Θϧ΍ فϴϟ ف̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϳ΍ ϞϤϋ Ύ̯ فϨՌΎ̯ ̶̩ή̡ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ لف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ ϑΩ΍ήΘϣ ف̯ ̶Ϭ̩ήΑ فϴϟ ف̯ έϭΩΰϣ 

έϭ΍ Ύ̳ ـΪϳήΧ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ύ̯ فΑϮλ Ύϳ فϗϼϋ β̯ فγ΍ ؟̯ ΎΗϮ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ ϡϮϠόϣ ؟ϳ Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ لف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ ΚϋΎΑ Ύ̯ ̶ϧΎθϳή̡ 

̵έΎσ ϑϮΧ ή̡ α΍ ̮Η εϼΗ ̶̯ Ύϗ΁ فΌϧ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟϮ٫ έΎ̰η Ύ̯ φϔΤΗ ϡΪϋ ΪϳΪη ٪ϭ فγ ؟Οϭ 

̶̯ βΟ Ύ̳Ϯ٫ Ύϴ̯ Ν΍ΰϣ Ύ̯ α΍ 

لف٫ ΎΘ٫έ

فϴϟ ف̯ ΕΎϗϭ΍ έΰ̳ فγ΍ ف٫ ΎΘϳΩή̯ ΪϨΑ ΕΎϋ΍ήϣ ϡΎϤΗ ̶Ό̳ ̵Ω Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ Ύϧ΍ή̡ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϨՌΎ̯ ̶̩ή̡ (ii) 

Ύ̯ ̶θ̯ ؟ϗΎϓ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ ٪ϭ ΚϋΎΑ ف̯ βΟ ΎΘϳΩ ؐϴ٬ϧ 

̶ϬΑ ΕίΎΟ΍ ̶̯ ̵έϭΩΰϣ ΖϨΤϣ ή̯ΎΟ ή̡ ؟̴Ο ̵ήγϭΩ ̶δ̯ ΎΗή̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ΍Ω΍ Ϫ̪̯ 

لف٫ ΎΗΎΟϮ٫ έΎ̰η 

ـΪϳήΧ ؟ϧ ̮ϟΎϣ Ύϴϧ ̶΋Ϯ̯ فγ΍ ؐϴϣ ΕΪϣ έήϘϣ έϭ΍ ف΋ΎΟϮ٫ έΎϤϴΑ έϭΩΰϣ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ή̳΍ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϧΎΟ فՌΎ̯ ̶̩ή̡ (iii) 

̶̯ ̶̴θϴ̡ Ύϳ ف̡ϭέ 

έ΍ΰ٫ ̶ϓ ̟ϭέ Ϯγ ̨ϧΎ̡ ΕΎϗϭ΍ ήΜ̯΍ ؟ϧΎϣήΟ ؟ϳ لف٫ ΎΗή̯ ؟ϧΎϣήΟ فγ΍ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΘϳΩ ΍ΰγ فγ΍ ̮ϟΎϣ Ύϧ΍ή̡ ϮΗ 

ϡϮϴϗ ΅΍έ 

̶̩ή̡ فΌϬ̰ϳΩ لف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ Ύϧή̯ ΍Ω΍ Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؐϴϣ ΕέϮλ ή٫ ؟ϧΎϣήΟ ؟ϳ لف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ ήΑ΍ήΑ ف̯ ΎϨ̳ ϭΩ ف̯ Ϣϗέ Ϟ̯ 

ل ٪ήϴϏϭ 

̶̯ ؟ΗΎϬ̯ ̶Ϩόϳ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ύϴϧ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗΎ̪Ϩ٬̡ ̮Η ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فΌϧ έ΍ΪόϤΟ Ύϳ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̶̩ή̡ (iv) 

ϝ΍վ ؐϴϣ ٪ήϴϏϭ ̭ήՌ ̶δ̯ Ϯ̯ ؏Ϯ̪Α ؏ϮΗέϮϋ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ ف̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗή̯ ΍Ω΍ Ϯ̯ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

فϧ΍ή̡ ؟ϧΎϣήΟ ؟όϣ ̶̴θϴ̡ 

؟ՍϬΑ ف̯ή̯ ϞϣΎη ΕΎΟ΍ήΧ΍ ϕήϔΘϣ ή̴ϳΩ έϭ΍ ؟̩ήΧ Ύ̯ έ΍ΪόϤΟ ˬ̭΍έϮΧ ˬΖϓέϭΪϣ΁ ؟ϳ΍ή̯ ̮ϟΎϣ Ύϴϧ لف٫ ΎΗ΁ فϟ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ فϨ̡΍ ή̯ 

Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ύ̯ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ Ύϳ ̶̴θϴ̡ α΍ ΕΎϗϭ΍ ήΜ̯΍ لف٫ ΎΘϴϟ 

Ϫ̰ϟ ؐϴϣ ήՍδΟέ فϨ̡΍ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ϡΎϧ ف̯ ٪΍ήΑήγ ف̯ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ έϭΩΰϣ 

̵ήΒΟ فγ ؏Ϯ̪Α ̵ϮϴΑ ف̯ ϡϼϏ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϨ̡΍ Ύϗ΁ Ύϴϧ Ρήσ α΍ έϭ΍ ف٫ ̶ΘՍ̯ ̶̩ή̡ έΎΑ ̵ήγϭΩ ΐΟ ف٫ ΎΘϠ̩ ؟Θ̡ Ζϗϭ α΍ 

̵έΪ٫Ϯ̩ ̶̩ή̡ 

فΌϬ̰ϳΩ لف٫ ΎΘϴϟ ՊΎ̯ فΘϔ٫ ή٫ ΕήΟ΍ ̶ϧΪϣ΁ ϒμϧ ̶̯ α΍ ή̡ ϡΎϧ ف̯ ̶̴θϴ̡ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗή̯ ωϭήη ΎϨϴϟ ΖϘθϣ 

فγ فϘϳήσ ϢψϨϣ ̶΋Ύ٬Θϧ΍ ̮ϳ΍ ϡΎψϧ ̶ϟΎμΤΘγ΍ ؟ϳ Ύ̯ Ω΍ΪόΘγ΍ϭήΒΟ ̶ΗϮՍ̯ ̶̯ ̶̴θϴ̡ ΖΧϭήϓϭΪϳήΧ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ β̯ήΑ 

̵έΎΟ έΎ٬Θη΍ فΌϬ̰ϳΩ ؐϴ٫ فϬ̯έή̯ ϊοϭ ϝϮλ΍ ٪ΪϋΎϗΎΑ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧϼ̩ Ϯ̯ ϡΎψϧ α΍ فϧ ؏ϮϨϤΠϧ΍ ̶̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ لف٫ ΎΘϠ̩ 

έϮ٫ϻ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϦϤΠϧ΍ ٪Ωή̯ 

ϖΣ ؟ϳ Ϯ̯ ϥ΍ ̶٫ ؟ϧ έϭ΍ ΎΗϮ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ վέΎ̰ϳέ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ ف̯ ̶ΗϮՍ̯ έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ Ύϳ ϡΎ̯ ؟ϧ΍ίϭέ αΎ̡ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

έϭΩΰϣ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ή̳΍ ؐϳή̯ ΖϓΎϳέΩ فγ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ύϳ ̶θϨϣ ؐϴϣ ـέΎΑ ف̯ ΕήΟ΍ έϭ΍ ̶̳Ωή̯έΎ̯ έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ ̶Ϩ̡΍ ٪ϭ ؟̯ ف٫ ϞλΎΣ 

؟ՍϬΑ -ؐϴ΋ΎΟϮ٫ 

؏Ύγ΍ήΣ έϭΩΰϣ ـήγϭΩ ؟̯ΎΗ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ΏϮ̯ϭΩί ή̡ 

έϮσ ف̯ ΍ΰγ فγ΍ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ήΜ̯΍ ϮΗ ـή̯ Ε΍ήΟ ̶δϳ΍ 

ف̯ ΕήΟ΍ ̶Ϩ̡΍ فϧ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̶δ̯ ̶ϬΒ̯ ΐΟ ؟̯ ؐϴ٫ ΩϮΟϮϣ ؐϴϟΎΜϣ ̶γ Ζ٬Α ̶δϳ΍ ϥ΍έϭΩ ف̯ Ϊ٬ΟϭΪΟ ̶̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ 

ϡή̳ ف̯ ف٫Ϯϟ ف΋Ϯ٫ فϬ̯έ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ لΎϴ̯ ΏϮ̯ϭΩί ΪϳΪη فγ΍ فϧ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϮΗ Ύϴ̯ ΖϓΎϳέΩ Ϫ̪̯ فγ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ ـέΎΑ 

̶ՍϴΑ Ύϳ Ϧ٬Α ˬΕέϮϋ ̶̯ α΍ ΎϳΎϨΑ ؟ϧΎθϧ Ύ̯ ΩΪθΗ ؐϴϣ ؟ϧΎϬΗ ف̯ ΍ϭή̯ Ϣ΋Ύϗ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ فՌϮϬ̩ ή̡ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ ΎϏ΍Ω ϢδΟ ΎϬ̯έ ΍֑Ϭ̯ ή̡ ؏΅ϮΗ 

ϮΗ ـή̯ ՋϨΠϳ΍ Ύ̯ ؏Ϯ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̶Ϩόϳ έ΍ΪόϤΟ ̶΋Ϯ̯ Ζ̯ήΣ ؟ϳ ή̳΍ لΎϳΩ ΍ϭή̯ ΖΧϭήϓ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ـήγϭΩ ̶δ̯ ف̯ ΍ϭή̯ ˯΍ϮϏ΍ Ϯ̯ 

̶̳Ϊϧί ϡΎϤΗ κΨη ٪ϭ ؟̯ΎΗ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ ΎϳΩή̯ ΐ΋ΎϏ ف̯ή̯ ΍ϮϏ΍ Ύϳ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ϭήΑ΁ فΑ Ϯ̯ ΕέϮϋ ̶δ̯ 

Ύϳ Ϯ٬Α ˬ̵ϮϴΑ ˬ̶ՍϴΑ ̶̯ α΍ 

٪ϭ ؐϴ٬ϧ Ύ٬Θϧ΍ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ̶̯ ϑϮΧ ؐϴϣ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟̯ ف٫ ؟Οϭ ̶٬ϳ لف٫έ έΎ̰η Ύ̯ ΖϳΫ΍ ̶Η΍Ϋ έϭ΍ ف̰γ ΎϬՌ΍ ؟ϧ ήγ فγ Ζϣ΍Ϊϧ 

فγ فϧΎΘΑ Ϯ̯ ̶δ̯ ϥΎΘγ΍Ω ̶̯ ϢϟΎψϣ فϟ΍ϭ فϧϮ٫ ή̡ϭ΍ 

فϨ̡΍ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗΎΟ ̠ϧΎ̯ ̶٫ فγ έϮμΗ ف̯ ؏Ϯ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ΕΎϗϭ΍ ήΜ̯΍ 

فγ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ έΪλ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ έ΍ΪϴϧΎϬΗ ΐϳήϗ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ έϮμΗ ΕΎΠϧ ̶Ϩ̡΍ ؐϴϣ α΍ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ΰϳή̳ 

Ε΍ΰϳϭΎΘγΩ ή̴ϳΩ έϭ΍ έ΁ ̶΋΁ ϒϳ΍ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ΩΪόΘϣ ف̯˯΍ϮϏ΍ فΌϬ̰ϳΩ لؐϴ٫ έΎϴΘΧ΍ΎΑ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ ήΛ΍ΎΑ έϭ΍ ρϮΒπϣ ٪ΩΎϳί 

؟̰ϠΑ ؐϴ٫ فΗΎϨΑ ؟ϧΎθϧ Ύ̯ αϮ٫ ̶Ϩ̡΍ Ϯ̯ ΕέϮϋ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϑήλ ؟ϧ فϴϟ ف̯ ΩΎϔϣ Ύϳ ϡΎϘΘϧ΍ Ύϳ ̶̴θϴ̡ ̶Ϩ̡΍ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

؏ΎϤϴγ فΌϬ̰ϳΩ ؐϳ فΘϳΩ ٪ΎϴΑ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ Ωήϣ ـήγϭΩ ̶δ̯ Ϯ̯ ΕέϮϋ ٪Ϊη ̵ΩΎη ΕΎϗϭ΍ ξόΑ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΘϳΩή̯ ΖΧϭήϓ Ϯ̯ ϥ΍ 

βϴ̯ ΢ϴδϣ Ϣϳή̯ Ϊϟϭ ΢ϴδϣ Ϧ٫Ϯγ ˻ لΎ̴ϧΎϣ ؟ϧΎϬΗ ؟όϓΩ ήϳί 

- - ؟ΧέϮϤΑ) 

FIR NO. 1871 ˺ βϴ̯ ̶Α ̶Α 

- ϥ΅ΎՌ 

Ϧϳή̳ ؟ϧΎϬΗ βϴ̯ ΪϤΤϣ ϥΎΟ ΎΑΎΑ ˼ 

لؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ΝέΩ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ Ϣ̯ ̶ϬΑ Ζϗϭ فΗή̯ ̶ΘϨ̳ ̶̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ ̶̡̰ έϭ΍ ̶̪̯ ̶Ό̳ ̶΋ΎϨΑ ̶θϨϣ ـΪϧέΎ̯ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

ف̯ فϧή̯ ؟ϧ έΎϴΗ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ ؟ΑϮϠτϣ فγ΍ ΐϧΎΟ ̵ήγϭΩ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟϮ٫ Ϣ̯ ΕήΟ΍ έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ ̶̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϑήσ ̮ϳ΍ ΚϋΎΑ ف̯ βΟ 

֑Α ֑̳ ؐϴϣ ̶ΘϨ̳ ̶̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ ̶θϨϣ ήΜ̯΍ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΘ٫έ ̵έΎσ ϑϮΧ Ύ̯ فϧΎΟ فՌΎ̯ ف̯ ̶̩ή̡ Ύϳ ΍ΰγ ̶̯ ؟ϧΎϣήΟ ؐϴϣ فϠδϠγ 

لؐϴ٫ فΗΎϨΑ ؟ϧΎθϧ Ύ̯ αϮ٫ ̶Ϩ̡΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮϴՍϴΑ Ϯ٬Α ̶̯ ϥ΍ ف̯ή̯ ٪Ωί ϑϮΧ Ϯ̯ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ ΪόΑ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ 

ΖΤΗ ف̯ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ̮ϳ΍ ϥΎϴϣέΩ ف̯ ϦϤΠϧ΍ ̶̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ή̡ ؏Ύ٬Ο ف̯ ؏ϮՍϬΑ ΪϨ̩ ف΋΍ϮγΎϣ 

فΌϬ̰ϳΩ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶ϟ ՊΎ̯ ՋϨϳ΍ βϴΑ فγ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ ̮Ϡϣ ـέϮ̡ ف٫ ̶̰̩Ϯ٫ ΪϨΑ ՊΎ̯ εέΎΑ έϭ΍ ՊΎ̯ ՋϨϳ΍ βϴΑ 

لؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ΍Ω΍ ΕήΟ΍ ̶̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ έ΍ΰ٫ ή̡ فϧή̯ έΎϴΗ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ 

Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ή٫ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̶Ϩόϳ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ 

--- 38 ---

̶΋΍ϮϬ̯έ ؐϴϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ˬؐϴ٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶΋΍ϮϬՌ΍ Ϊ΋΍ί ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ βϴΑ ̶ϬΑ فγ ؏Ϯϟ΍ϭ ̶γΎ̰ϧ έϭ΍ ؏Ϯϟ΍ϭ ̶΋΍ήϬΑ ˬ؏ϭέΎ٬Ϥ̯ Ρήσ ̶γ΍ 

ف̯ ΕήΟ΍ ̶δ̯ ήϴϐΑ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ έ΍ΰ٫ βϴΑ Ϯ̯ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϟ΍ϭ فϧή̯ έΎϴΗ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ Ϫ̯ϻ αΩ Ρήσ α΍ لؐϴ٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶ϟΎ̰ϧ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ ̶ΗΎΟ 

لؐϴ٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶̯ έΎϴΗ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ Ϫ̯ϻ αΩ ٪Ύϣ ή٫ ؐϴϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϳ΍ ف٫έ ΢ο΍ϭ -ؐϴ٫ 

̶ΗΎΟ Ϯ٫ ϞλΎΣ 

؟ՍϬΑ Ρήσ α΍ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶̯ ΍Ω΍ ΕήΟ΍ ϒμϧ ̶̯ ؏ϮՍϨϳ΍ ٪Ϊη έΎϴΗ ؐϴϣ ήϬΑ ؟Θϔ٫ ؐϴϣ ΕέϮλ ̶̯ εέΎΑ Ρήσ ̶γ΍ 

لؐϴ٬ϧ ؐϴϣ ϊϓΎϨϣ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ϞϣΎη ϮΗ ؐϴϣ ϥΎμϘϧ Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ 

̶̯ فϧϮ٫ ؟ϧ ΖδΑϭΪϨΑ Ύ̯ Ζϳέ Ύϳ ̶ϧΎ̡ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ Ύϳ ΕΎϓ΁ ̶ΗέΪϗ ˬεέΎΑ ˬ̵έΎϤϴΑ ˬ̶ՍϬ̩ έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ 

؟ՍϬΑ 

̵έΎϤϴΑ ˬβϧ΅ϻ΍ 

Ϟ̰ϳտϴϣ ̶٫ ؟ϧ ΎΘϳΩ ؐϴ٬ϧ ΖϟϮ٬γ ̶΋Ϯ̯ Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϮΗ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ ΎϬ̯έ ΪϨΑ ϡΎ̯ ΐΟ ؐϴϣ ΕέϮλ 

ϥΎΑί ̶̯ ؏Ϯ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فδΟ لف٫ ΎΘϳΩ فϴϟ ف̯ ΕΎϗϭ΍έΰ̳ Ϣϗέ 

̶γ ήϴϘΣ Ϯ̯ έϭΩΰϣ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥ΍έϭΩ α΍ ؟̰ϠΑ ٪ήϴϏϭ βϧ΅ϻ΍ 

Ϯγ Ύϳ ف̡ϭέ αΎ̡̪ ̶ϬΑ ̶ϬΒ̯ ؟̩ήΧ ̶̰ϬՍϴΑ لف٫ Ϟ̰η ̮ϳ΍ ̶̯ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ Ύϳ ̶̴θϴ̡ ̶ϬΑ ؟ϳ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ Ύ٬̯ ˬ؟̩ήΧ ̶̰ϬՍϴΑ ؐϴϣ 

لΎΗΎΟ ΎϳΩ ؐϴ٬ϧ Ϊ΋΍ί فγ ف̡ϭέ 

έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϳ΍ Ρήσ α΍ ؐϴ٫ ̶ΘϨΑ Ϊ΋΍ί فγ ؏ϮϧΩ Ϯγ ؟ϳ ϮΗ ف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΎ̴ϟ ؟ϨϴϤΨΗ ή̳΍ Ύ̯ ؏ϮϴՍϬ̩ ̶ϗΎϔΗ΍ έϭ΍ ϥϮγ ϥϮϣ 

لف٫ ΎΗή̯ ϡΎ̯ ϥΩ 260 ϑήλ ؐϴϣ ϝΎγ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ ̮ϳ΍ Ρήσ α΍ ΎΘ̰γή̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ϡΎ̯ Ϊ΋΍ί فγ ίϭέ βϴΑ ˱Ύτγϭ΍ ؐϴϣ ٪Ύϣ ̮ϳ΍ 

ΖθΧ έ΍ΰ٫ ̶ϓ ف̡ϭέ βϴϟΎ̩ Ϟ̯ Ν΁ لف٫ ΎΗή̯ έΎϴΗ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ έ΍ΰ٫ ̮ϳ΍ ΎΒϳήϘΗ ف̯ή̯ ΖϨΤϣ ήϬΑ ϥΩ ؟ΒϨ̯ ̮ϳ΍ Ύ̯ Ω΍ήϓ΍ 6 

فγ ΏΎδΣ ف̯ έ΍ΰ٫ ̶ϓ ف̡ϭέ βϴϟΎ̩ لف٫ ΎΗή̯ έΎϴΗ ؐϴՍϨϳ΍ ؐϴϣ ϝΎγ ̮ϳ΍ 

̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟̰ΒΟ لف٫ έήϘϣ ̶΋ΎϬՍ̡ 

̶ΗϮՍ̯ ̶̯ ̶̴θϴ̡ ΕήΟ΍ ϒμϧ ف̡ϭέ ΕήΟ΍ ؟ϧϻΎγ ̶̯ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ έϭΩΰϣ ̮ϳ΍ ف̡ϭέ 10,400=40x260000/1000 

̶̯ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ ϞϣΎη ف̪Α έϭ΍ ̶ՍϴΑ ˬ̵ϮϴΑ ΪϧϭΎΧ ؐϴϣ βΟ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ ̮ϳ΍ ϞϤΘθϣ ή̡ Ω΍ήϓ΍ Ϫ̩ ف̡ϭέ ؐϴϣ فϠδϠγ ف̯ 

5020/365 = ΕήΟ΍ ؟ϧ΍ίϭέ 

--- 39 --- 

؟ϴϣϮϳ ف̡ϭέ ٪ΩϮ̩ 

ΕέϮλ ̶δ̯ فγ ف̡ϭέ2-50 

ΕήΟ΍ ؟ϴϣϮϳ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ -ف̡ϭέ 

2-30ΎΒϳήϘΗ 

ΕήΟ΍ ؟ϴϣϮϳ ̶̯ Ωήϓ ̮ϳ΍ 

ف̯ ϞϴΟ فγ ϑήσ 

̶̯ ΖϣϮ̰Σ لف٫ Ϧ̰ϤϣΎϧ Ύϧέ΍ΰ̳ ̶̳Ϊϧί ؐϴϣ ΕήΟ΍ ϞϴϠϗ έΪϗ α΍ ؐϴϣ έϭΩ ف̯ ̶΋Ύ̴Ϩ٬ϣ ل̶ΘϨΑ ؐϴ٬ϧ Ϊ΋΍ί ̶ϬΑ 

لف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̵Ω ̭΍έϮΧ ̶̯ ؟ϧ΍ίϭέ ف̡ϭέ 3-50 ̶ϬΑ Ϯ̯ ̵Ϊϴϗ 

ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϑήσ ̮ϳ΍ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟̯ لف٫ ϥΎγ΁ ̶΋Ύ٬Θϧ΍ ΎϧΎ̴ϟ ٪ί΍Ϊϧ΍ ؟ϳ ؐϴϣ ̶Ϩηϭέ ̶̯ ϒ΋΍Ϯ̯ ήΗ ϡΎϤΗ ϻΎΑ ٪έϮ̯άϣ 

ή̯ ϦΑ ϡϼϏ ΖΤΗ ف̯ ϡΎψϧ ̶ϟΎμΤΘγ΍ ف̯ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ̶̴θϴ̡ ϑήσ ̵ήγϭΩ ف٫ έΎ̰η Ύ̯ ؏ϮΘγΩ ٪ήϴ̩ ̶̯ ؏ϭΪϧέΎ̯ ف̯ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ 

̶ϣϼϏ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ ف΋ΎΟϮ٫ Ω΍ί΁ فγ ̶ϣϼϏ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΘ٫έ ؐϴϣ ϢՍδγ ήΒϴϟ վտϧΎΑ ٪ϭ ؟̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ̶٫ Ϧ̰Ϥϣ ؟ϳ فϴϟ ف̯ α΍ έϭ΍ لف٫ Ύϴ̳ ٪έ 

لف٫ ϡΎϧ ΍ήγϭΩ Ύ̯ ϢՍδγ ̶̴θϴ̡ 

فϘϳήσ ϦϴΗ ϭΩ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϢΘΧ Ϯ̯ ϢՍδγ ̶̴θϴ̡ ؐϴϣ Ϊ٬ΟϭΪΟ έϭ΍ ̶̳Ϊϧί ؟ϟΎγ 20 ̶Ϩ̡΍ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

Ϟ΋Ύδϣ فϨ̡΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ϑήλ ̶΋Ϯ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ ̶ΑΎϴϣΎ̯ ٪΍ϮΧ ήσΎΧ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ؐϴϣ α΍ فγ ؟Οϭ ̶̯ فϧϮ٫ ؟ϧ φϔΤΗ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ف΋Ύϣί΁ 

لف٫ ΍Ϯ٫ ΍Ϊϴ̡ αΎδΣ΍ Ύ̯ فϧή̯ ϢΘΧ Ϯ̯ ϢՍδγ ̶̴θϴ̡ ̶ϟΎμΤΘγ΍ έϭ΍ فϠδϠγ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϞΣ 

فϧ΍ή̯ Ω΍ί΁ فγ ΩΪθΗϭήΒΟ 

ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ فϨϟΎ̰ϧ فγ ΖϘθϣ ̵ήΒΟ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

؟ՍϬΑ فϧ ؏ϮΘϟ΍Ϊϋ Ի̶Ϡϋ΍ ؐϴϣ ΍ΪΘΑ΍ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ̶̯ ζηϮ̯ ̶̯ فϧ΍ή̯ Ω΍ί΁ فόϳέΫ ف̯ ϒϠϴΑ ؐϴϣ˯ 9 فϠ٬̡ فγ ΐγ فΌϟ ف̯ 

̶̯ ΎΟ فΑ βΒΣ Ϯ̯ ΫΎΤϣ ΪόΑ ϝΎγ ̮ϳ΍ ˱ΎΒϳήϘΗ Ϧ̰ϴϟ Ύϴ̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ϢϴϠδΗ Ϯ̯ ϒϗϮϣ ف̯ فϨϬ̯έ ؐϴϣ ΎΟ فΑ βΒΣ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ 

ΎΟ فΑ βΒΣ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؏ϭ֑̰Ϩϴγ ΪόΑ ف̯ βΟ ل̶΋Ϯ٫ αϮδΤϣ ̶ϧΎγ΁ ؐϴϣ فϧή̯ 

ζϴ̡ ؐϴϣ ؟ϴϟΎϋ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ؐϴΘγ΍ϮΧέΩ 

ف΋΍έ فόϳέΫ ف̯ ؏ϮγϮϠΟ ˬ؏ϮδϠΟ ؏Ϯϴϣή̳ήγ ϦϴϧϮϳ տϳήՌ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥ΍έϭΩ α΍ لΎϴ̳ Ύϳ΍ή̯ Ω΍ί΁ فόϳέΫ ف̯ ؏ϮՌέ 

Ύϴ̯ ٪Ύ̳΁ Ϯ̯ ι΍ϮΧ έϭ΍ ϡ΍Ϯϋ 

فγ Ϟ΋Ύδϣ ف̯ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϕϮϠΨϣ ϝΎΤϟ΍ ̭ϮϠϔϣ فγ ϥϭΎόΗ ف̯ βϳή̡ έϭ΍ Ύϴ̯ έ΍ϮϤ٫ Ϯ̯ ؟ϣΎϋ 

لؐϴ΋Ϯ٫ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ؐϴ٫΍έ Ϫ̪̯ فγ βΟ 

؟ϳ ΎϳΩή̯ άϓΎϧ Ջ̰ϳ΍ ̵ήՍ̰ϴϓ ή̡ ؏ϮՍϬΑ فόϳέΫ ف̯ βϨϨϳվέ΁ ̮ϳ΍ فϧ ΏΎΠϨ̡ ήϧέϮ̳ ϥΎϤΣήϟ΍ ϖϴΘϋ ϝήϨΟ ؐϴϣ˯1970 

̶΋Ϯ̯ فόϳέΫ ف̯ βϨϨϳվέ΁ α΍ -΍Ϯ٫ 

ϊ΋Ύη ؐϴϣ ̵վ Ϟϳ΍ ̶̡ ˯1971 

βϨϨϳվέ΁ ؟ϳ ل̶ϬΗ ̶ΑΎϴϣΎ̯ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ 

̶Ϡ٬̡ ̶̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

ϼϣ ΍έΎ٬γ ̮ϳ΍ ؐϴϣ فϠδϠγ ف̯ فϨ̪Ϩ٬̡ ̮Η ؏ϮΘϟ΍Ϊϋ έϭ΍ فϧή̯ ΪϨΑ ί΍ϭ΁ ̶Ϩ̡΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ΍Ϯ٫ ؟ϧ ϮΗ ٪Ϊ΋Ύϓ ̶ϠϤϋ 

α΍ ـή̯ ϢΘΧ Ϯ̯ ϢՍδγ ف̯ ήΒϴϟ վտϧΎΑ فγ ̮Ϡϣ ٪ϭ ؟̯ ̶ϬΗ ؟ϧ κϠΨϣ ؐϴϣ ـέΎΑ α΍ ؐϴϣ ̶οΎϣ ˬΖϣϮ̰Σ ̶ϬΑ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ؟̰ϧϮ̩ 

˱ΎΒϳήϘΗ

؟ϠδϠγ ف̯ ΕήΟ΍ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϧ վέϮΑ ΕήΟ΍ Ϣ̯ فγ Ϣ̯ ؐϴϣ ήΧ΁ϭ΍ 

ف̯ ل̶Ό̳ ̵Ω ؟ϧ ؟ΟϮΗ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ϑήσ α΍ فΌϟ 

فγ ؟Οϭ ̶̯ βΟ لΎϬΗ ΩϮΟϮϣ ٪ΪϨ΋ΎϤϧ Ύ̯ ؏Ϯ̰ϟΎϣ ̶ϬΑ ؟̴Ο ̶̯ ٪ΪϨ΋ΎϤϧ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؐϴϣ վέϮΑ ΕήΟ΍ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ̶̯ έΎ̪Α ̧Ϯγ ؐϴϣ 

̶Ϩόϳ ̵Ωή̯ ̶Ϥ̯ ̶̯ ف̡ϭέ ϦϴΗ ؐϴϣ ΕήΟ΍ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϧ ΐΣΎλ فϣ΍έ ϒϴϨΣ ̶Ϡϋ΍ήϳίϭ ؐϴϣ ΖϣϮ̰Σ ̶̯ ̶ՌέΎ̡ΰϠ̢ϴ̡ 

فϧ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥ΍έϭΩ α΍ ̵Ωή̯ έήϘϣ ̶΋ΎϬΘ̡ ΖθΧ έ΍ΰ٫ ̶ϓ ف̡ϭέ Ϯϧ ف̯ή̯ Ϣ̯ فγ ̶΋ΎϬΘ̡ ΖθΧ έ΍ΰ٫ ̶ϓ ف̡ϭέ ٪έΎΑ 

ϑήσ ̶̯ ΖϣϮ̰Σ Ύϳ΍ή̯ ؟ϓΎο΍ ΎϨ̳ ϭΩ ΎΒϳήϘΗ ؐϴϣ ΕήΟ΍ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ف̯ή̯ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ فγ ̟ϭή̳ ̮ϳ΍ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

ل΍Ϯ٫ έήϘϣ ΖθΧέ΍ΰ٫ ̶ϓ ف̡ϭέ ٪έΪϨ̡ فγ Ϊ٬ΟϭΪΟ ̶̯ ΫΎΤϣ ؟̰ΒΟ ΎϬΗ έήϘϣ ̶΋ΎϬΘ̡ ΖθΧ έ΍ΰ٫ ̶ϓ ف̡ϭέ Ϯϧ فγ 

έϭ΍ ؟ϓΎο΍ ؐϴϣ ؏ϮΗήΟ΍ έϭ΍ ̵Ω΍ί΁ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮Η ή̯ فϟ فγ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

؟ՍϬΑ 

έϭ΍ Ύϳ΍ή̯ Ω΍ί΁ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ف̯ή̯ ή΋΍Ω ؐϴΘγ΍ϮΧέΩ ̶̯ ΎΟ فΑ βΒΣ ؐϴϣ ؟ϴϟΎϋ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧΎϨΑ ήΘ٬Α ̶̳Ωή̯έΎ̯ 

α΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮϨ٫Ϋ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϢΘΧ Ϯ̯ ϢՍδγ վտϧΎΑ έϭ΍ ̶̯ ζηϮ̯ ̶̯ فϧή̯ ϞϳΪΒΗ Ϯ̯ ؟ϳϭέ ؟ϧΎϤϟΎχ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ 

فΌϟ α΍ ؐϴ٫ ٪ϭή̳ ϢψϨϣ ̮ϳ΍ Ρήσ ̶̯ ΎϴϓΎϣ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟̰ϧϮ̩ -̶̯ 

ζηϮ̯ ̶̯ فϧή̯ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ΩΎϤΘϋ΍ ؐϴϣ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ Ύϴ̯ Ϟ΋Ύϣ ϑήσ 

لΎϴ̯ ؟ϠΑΎϘϣ έϮ̡ήϬΑ ̶ϬΑ Ύ̯ α΍ فϧ ؏Ϯ٬ϧ΍ 

Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ٪Ωή̯ Ω΍ί΁ فγ ؏ΎΟ فΑ βΒΣ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ΐΟ ؐϴ٫ فδϳ΍ ΕΎόϗ΍ϭ ϦϴΗ ϒλ ؐϴϣ ΦϳέΎΗ ϡΎϤΗ ̶̯ ΫΎΤϣ 

Ϟ̴Ϩ̩ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ Ϯ̯ ϥ΍ ήϬ̡ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ Ϧ̰ϴϟ فΌ̳ فϟ β̡΍ϭ فόϳέΫ ف̯ ΥϮγέϭ ήΛ΍ ̶γΎϴγ έϭ΍ ؏ϭտϨϏ ˬβϴϟϮ̡ 

ΪόΑ ؟λήϋ Ϫ̪̯ 

لΎϴϟ΍ή̯ Ω΍ί΁ فγ 

ل΍Ϯ٫ فγ ̶ϧΎΑή٬ϣ ̶̯ ؟ϴϟΎϋ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ 

έϭ΍ ؏ϮϘϳήσ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ έϭ΍ Ϧϴ΋΁ Ϫ̪̯ ΐγ ؟ϳ 

ؐϴϣ βΟ ف٫ ؟όϗ΍ϭ ؟ϴϟΎΣ Ύ̯ ϡϮϴϘϟ΍ΪΒϋ ΅΍έ 

؟όϗ΍ϭ ΍ήδϴΗ ؟̰ΒΟ ؐϴ٫ ف̯ ΪϤΤϣ ϥΎΟ ΎΑΎΑ έϭ΍ ΢ϴδϣ ΪΘ̴Ο ΕΎόϗ΍ϭ ϭΩ فϠ٬̡ 

̮ϳ΍ έϭΩΰϣ ϡΎϤΗ Ϣ٫ Ν΁ فγ βΟ ف٫ εϭΎ̯ ̶Η΍Ϋ ̶̯ ΏΎϨΟ ϑήλ ؟ϳ ̮ϳΩΰϧ ـήϴϣ ل̶ϟ Ύ̪Α ϥΎΟ فϧ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ ϑ΁ ՊέϮ̯ Ϣϳή̢γ 

؟ϳή̰η لؐϴ٫ ف٫έ Ϫ̰ϳΩ ϑήσ ̶̯ ϖϓ΍ فΌϧ 

έϭ΍ ̮ϳ΍ ؐϴϣ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ فΌϟ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϢΘΧ Ϯ̯ ̶̴θϴ̡ ΩΎ٬ϧ ϡΎϧ فγ ϑήσ ̶̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ فγ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

̶̴ϴ΋΍Ω΍ ف΋΍ήΑ ̶ՌέΎϬΗ΍ ؟οϭΎόϣ ήϨθϤ̯ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ ف̯ ΕΎΒΟ΍ϭ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ˱ΎΒϳήϘΗ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ ΎϳΎϨ̡΍ ؟Θγ΍έ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ 

έϭ΍ ̶̯ ̶Ϩ̰η ϝΩ ̶̯ Ε΍ήπΣ˯ϼ̯ϭ ـέΎϤ٫ فϧ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ؐϴϣ ωϭήη ωϭήη -ف΋΍ϭή̯ 

ΝέΩ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ؐϴϣ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ̶̯ ϥΎϨ̯έΎ̯ 

ΖϋΎϤγ ف΋΍ήΑ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ فϧ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ٪έϮ̯άϣ ؐϴϣ ΪόΑ Ϧ̰ϴϟ Ύϴ̯ ν΍ήΘϋ΍ ή̡ ̶ϟϮλϭ ̶̯ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ 

لفΌ̯ ϞΧ΍Ω 

ف̯ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ 

فγ ؟Οϭ ̶̯ ΥϮγέϭήΛ΍ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ϫ̪̯ έϭ΍ ؏ϮϴϓΎ̴ηϮϣ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ Ϫ̪̯ ̶ϬΑ فϧ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ٪έϮ̯άϣ 

ϑϼΧ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ فϟ΍ϭ فϧ΍ϭή̯ ΝέΩ ϢϴϠ̯ Ύ̯ ΕΎΒΟ΍ϭ فϧ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥ΍έϭΩ α΍ فΌ̯ فγ ήϴΧΎΗ فϠμϴϓ 

̵տϨϣ Ύ̴ϧΎϣ ل̶̯ ζηϮ̯ ̶̯ فϧ΍ϭή̯ β̡΍ϭ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ έϭ΍ ΎϳΎϨΑ ؟ϧΎθϧ Ύ̯ ΩΪθΗ ؐϴ٬ϧ΍ ف̯ ΍ϭή̯ ΝέΩ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ف̯ ̵έϮ̩ 

فΌϬ̰ϳΩ ϞϘϧ ̶̯ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ف̯ ΝέΩ ؐϴϣ ؟ϧΎϬΗ 

لؐϴ٫ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ϒϟ فϠμϴϓ ف̯ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ϦϴΗ فγ ؐϴϣ ϦΟ ف΋Ϯ٫ فϠμϴϓ ف̯ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ̮ϳ΍ 

ΪϨ̩ 

--- 40 --- 

ΪϤΤϣ έ΍Ωήγ ؏Ύϴϣ ϡΎϨΑ ΢ϴδϣ ϊθϳ΍ ل1 

νΎϳέ ̵έΪ٫Ϯ̩ ϡΎϨΑ ΢ϴδϣ Ζ̯Ϯη ل2 

ϑήη΍ ΪϤΤϣ Φϴη ϡΎϨΑ ΢ϴδϣ ϦΠϧήϓ ل3 

ف̯ ̵Ωή̳ 

٪տϨϏ έϭ΍ ՋϳήՍδΠϣ ؟ϗϼϋ βϴϟϮ̡ Ϊ٬ΟϭΪΟ ή٫ ̶̯ ̵Ω΍ί΁ έϭ΍ ̵ήΘ٬Α ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϧ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

لΎϬ̯έ ήψϧ ζϴ̡ Ϯ̯ ̶ΘγΩϻΎΑ ̶̯ ϥϮϧΎϗ ή̡ ϊϗϮϣ ή٫ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ ؟̰ΒΟ ̶̯ ζηϮ̯ ̶̯ فϧΎΑΩ فόϳέΫ 

έΎΑ ϦϴΗ ή̡ ϪΠϣ ή̡ έϮσ ̶Η΍Ϋ فΌ̯ فϠϤΣ ؟ϧϼΗΎϗ ή̡ ؏ϮϨ̯έΎ̯ ف̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فγ˯ فϧ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

̶ϤΧί ̱Ϯϟ Ϫ̪̯ ΚϋΎΑ ف̯ βΟ ̶̯ ̲ϧή΋Ύϓ 

فϧ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ϥ΍έϭΩ ف̯ ̲ϨՍϴϣ ̮ϳ΍ ή̡ վϭέ ̶Ռ ̶Ο ؟όϓΩ ̮ϳ΍ ف΋Ϯ٫ فϠϤΣ ؟ϧϼΗΎϗ 

ϥ΍ ̟΁ لفϬΗ ΩϮΟϮϣ ̶ϬΑ Ջϴ̯ϭϭտϳ΍ ٪Ύ̴Ϩϟ ΪϤΤϣ ΝΎΗ لؐϴ٫ ήϴθϣ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ـέΎϤ٫ Ջϴ̯ϭϭտϳ΍ ϦδΣ΍ 

ί΍ΰΘϋ΍ ̵έΪ٫Ϯ̩ ή̡ ϊϗ΍ϭ α΍ ف΋Ϯ٫ 

ՋϨΠϳ΍ ̶γϭέ ̶ϬΒ̯ έΎ̯ ΐϳήΨΗ ή̡ Ϣ٫ ̶ϬΒ̯ فγ ϑήσ ̶̯ ϦϤΠϧ΍ ̶̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ٪ϭϼϋ ف̯ α΍ لؐϴ٫ فΘ̰γ Ϫ̩Ϯ̡ ή̯ ΍ϮϠΑ Ϯ̯

ϮΟ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ̮ϳ΍ έϭ΍ έΎ٬Θη΍ ̮ϳ΍ ٪Ϊη ϊ΋Ύη ؐϴϣ έΎΒΧ΍ فγ ϑήσ ̶̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ α΍ لف٫ ΎΗΎΟ ΎϳΎ̴ϟ ϡ΍ΰϟ΍ 

Ύ̯ 

لف٫ ϒϟ ف̯ ՊέϮ̡έ ̶ϬΗ ̵Ω Ϯ̯ ϻΎΑ ϡΎ̰Σ ή̴ϳΩ έϭ΍ ΏΎΠϨ̡ ̶Ο ̶΋΁ فϧ ؏Ϯ٬ϧ΍ 

ΪϳΪη Ϯ̯ Ω΍Ω Ϊ٫΍ί ΏΎϨΟ ϝήϨΟ ̵ήՌή̰ϴγ ف̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϧ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ζϗϭ ف̯ Ε΍έ Ϯ̯19-4-1988 

ف̯ ٪έϮ̡ϮΨϴη ϊϠο ؟ϟ΍ϮϧΎϴϧΎ̯ ϊοϮϣ 

ΐΣΎλ Ω΍Ω Ϊ٫΍ί ΏΎϨΟ لؐϴΌ̳ ՊϮՌ ؏Ύϳտ٫ ϒϠΘΨϣ ϪՌ΁ ̶̯ ϥ΍ ΚϋΎΑ ف̯ βΟ ΎϳΩή̯ ̶ϤΧί 

فϬΗ ف٫έ΁ ή̯ فϟ β̡΍ϭ Ϯ̯ ف̪Α ٪ϭ ΐΟ έϭ΍ فΌ̳ έΪλ ؟ϧΎϬΗ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧ΍ή̯ Ω΍ί΁ Ϯ̯ ΢ϴδϣ έΎΘγ ف̪Α ̮ϳ΍ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϳ΍ 

فϧή̯ ΍ϮϏ΍ ٪έΎΑϭΩ Ϯ̯ ف̪Α έϭ΍ Ύϴϟ ̭ϭέ ف̯ή̯ ΍֑Ϭ̯ ̭ήՌ έϭ΍ ̶ϟ΍ήՌ ή̡ ـϭ ̶΋Ύ٫ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فγ Ζ̴ϬΑ ̶Ϡϣ ̶̯ βϴϟϮ̡ ϮΗ 

ϡΰϋ Ύ̯ 

؟ϤΗΎΧ ف̯ ϢՍδγ վտϧΎΑ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ΩϮΟϭΎΑ ف̯ ΕϻΎΣ ϻΎΑ ٪έϮ̯άϣ ؐϴ٫ ϒϟلέ΁ل̶΋΁لϒϳ΍ ؏ϮϧϭΩ ل̶̯ ζηϮ̯ ̶̯ 

ϒϗ΍ϭ ̶ϬΑ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ΪϳΎη ؐϴϣ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ϭΪϨ٫ ϞΒϗ فγ˯ ؐϴϣ ـέΎΑ ف̯ έ΍ί ΖϟΎΣ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ لف٫ ؏ΎηϮ̯ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΘϬ̯έ 

έϭ΍ ΩΎΑ΁ Ϟμϴϓ ˬՊϮ̰ϟΎϴγ ؐϴϣ ΏΎΠϨ̡ ˱ΎλϮμΧ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ ΪόΑ ف̯ ̶ΑΎϴϣΎ̯ ̶΋΍ΪΘΑ΍ έϭ΍ ϡ΍Ϊϗ΍ ف̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ϧ̰ϴϟ لΎϬΗ ؐϴ٬ϧ 

ϮΟ ή̡ ΕΎϣΎϘϣ ٪έϮ̯άϣ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ̶΋ΎϬՌ΍ ί΍ϭ΁ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ ف̯ Ϟ΋Ύδϣ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϧ Ω΍ήϓ΍ Ϫ̪̯ ؐϴϣ έϭΎθ̡ ؐϴϣ ΪΣήγ ؟ΑϮλ 

ՋϨϤՌέΎ̢ϳվ ήΒϴϟ لΎϴ̯ εϼΗ فόϳέΫ ف̯ ՋϨϤՌέΎ̢ϳվ ήΒϴϟ Νϼϋ Ύ̯ Ϫ̯Ω ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϧ ؏Ϯ٬ϧ΍ ـήϬΑ΍ Ϧ̯έΎ̯ ف̯ ϦϴϧϮϳ 

տϳήՌ 

لفΌ̳Ϯ٫ εϮϣΎΧ ΖγϭΩ ήΜ̯΍ ΪόΑ ف̯ ̶γϮϳΎϣ فγ 

̶٫ ؟ϧ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ έΎϤηϭΩ΍Ϊϋ΍ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ̶٫ ؟ϧ ؐϴϣ ـέΎΑ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ αΎ̡ ف̯ ՋϨϤՌέΎ̢ϳվ ήΒϴϟ ؟̯ ف٫ ؟ϳ ΖϘϴϘΣ 

ف̯ ՋϨϤՌέΎ̢ϳվ ήΒϴϟ ϮΟ ف٫ ϡΎ̯ Ϟ̰θϣ Ζ٬Α ؟ϳ ΪϳΎη ف٫ ̶̯ ζηϮ̯ ̶̯ فϧή̯ ϖϴϘΤΗ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ή̡ Ϟ΋Ύδϣ ف̯ ؟ϘΒσ 

α΍ فϧ ؏Ϯ٬ϧ΍ 

ف̯ فϧϮ٫ άϓΎϧ Ջ̰ϳ΍ ̵ήՍ̰ϴϓ فγ˯ ή̡ ؏ϮՍϬΑ ؟̯ ف٫ ϝΎΣ ΕέϮλ ̭Ύϧ αϮδϓ΍ Ζ٬Α ؟ϳ لف٫ ̶ϓΎϨϣ ف̯ ΐμϨϣϭ ξ΋΍ήϓ 

α΍ ̶ϬΑ فϟ΍ϭ ՋϨϤՌέΎ̢ϳվ ήΒϴϟ لف٫ ΎϬΠϤγ ؟ϠΌδϣ ̶ϧΎδϧ΍ 

فγ΍ ̶٫ ؟ϧ έϭ΍ ̵Ω ؐϴ٬ϧ ؟ΟϮΗ ϑήσ ̶̯ α΍ فϧ ՋϨϤՌέΎ̢ϳվ ήΒϴϟ ΩϮΟϭΎΑ 

Ν΁ لف٫ ̶̯ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ ـέϮ̡ ؐϴ٬ϧ ؐϴϣ ̶٫ ΏΎΠϨ̡ ϑήλ ϝΎΣ έϮλ ؟ϳ لؐϴ٫ فΘϳΩή̯ έάϧ ̶̯ ؏ϮϴϓΎ̴ηϮϣ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ϑήλ Ϯ̯ ؟ϠΌδϣ 

ؐϴηϭΎ̯ ̶̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ α΍ ؐϴ٫ ف΋Ϯ٫ ـϭήγ έϭ΍ ΕΎϘϴϘΤΗ έΎϤηϭΩ΍Ϊϋ΍ έΪϗ βΟ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮Η 

ؐϴϣ ̮Ϡϣ ؟̯ ف٫ ΪϨϣ ζ٫΍ϮΧ Ύ̯ ΕΎΑ α΍ έϭ΍ Ύϴ̯ έϮμΗ ϢՍδγ έΎ̰ϴΑ فγ΍ فγ ̶٫ ίΎϏ΁ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ ؐϴ٫ ϞϣΎη 

̶̯ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ α΍ فϧ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ لϮ٫ ϢΘΧ ϢՍδγ վտϧΎΑ ̶ϟΎμΤΘγ΍ Ύϧ΍ή̡ ؏ϮϳΪλ ؟ϳ فγ βΟ فϨΑ ϥϮϧΎϗ Ύδϳ΍ ̶΋Ϯ̯ 

ΖΑΎΛ ΍ήΤλ ؟Α ΍Ϊλ ϡΎϤΗ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ؐϴΠϴϬΑ ؐϴΘη΍Ω ΩΎϳ Ϯ̯ ؏Ϯϧ΍ήϤ̰Σ ̶ΟϮϓ ˬ̶٫Ύη ήδϓ΍ ˬ؏ϮϤϴψϨΗ 

̶γΎϴγ Ϣϴϧ ˬ؏ϮϴՌέΎ̡ ̶γΎϴγ ϡΎϤΗ 

ΩϮΟϮϣ ή̡ έϮσ ̶Η΍Ϋ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ βΟ ؐϴ٬ϧ ̶δϳ΍ ̶ՌέΎ̡ ̶γΎϴγ ̶ϬΑ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ΪϳΎη Ζϗϭ α΍ ؟̯ ف٫ ؟Οϭ ؟ϳ ̶̯ α΍ ΪϳΎη لؐϴ΋Ϯ٫ 

ف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ αϮδΤϣ ٪ήτΧ ̶΋Ϯ̯ Ϯ̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ̶ϬΒ̯ 

ΐΟ έϭ΍ ف٫ ̶Αϻ ρϮΒπϣ ؐϴϣ ـέ΍Ω΍ έϭ΍ ̶ՌέΎ̡ ̶γΎϴγ ή٫ ̶̯ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ ؏Ϯ٫ ؟ϧ 

Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ΪμϘϣ Ύ̯ ΕΎηέ΍ΰ̳ ϡΎϤΗ ϥ΍ لف٫ ̶Ηή̯ ϝΎϤόΘγ΍ Ϯ̯ ΥϮγέϭήΛ΍ έϭ΍ ف΋Ύϣήγ فϨ̡΍ فϴϟ ف̯ فϨϟΎՌ Ϯ̯ ٪ήτΧ ̶Αϻ ̶٬ϳ 

ϮΗ 

لϮ٫ 

ΩϮΟϮϣ ϮϠ٬̡ ή٫ فϨϣΎγ ف̯ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ϞοΎϓ ؟̯ ف٫ ζηϮ̯ ήϴϘΣ ؟ϳ ؟̰ϠΑ ؐϴ٬ϧ Ύϧή̯ ϊ΋Ύο Ζϗϭ ̶ΘϤϴϗ Ύ̯ 

؟ՍϬΑ ؟̯ ف٫ ؟ϳ ٪ϭ ف٫ ̶Η΁ فϨϣΎγ ή̯ ϞϬ̯ ٪ΩΎϳί فγ ΐγ ΕΎΑ ϮΟ ϥ΍έϭΩ ف̯ Ϊ٬ΟϭΪΟ 

̶̯ ΫΎΤϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

Ζη΍ΩήΑ فϨ̳ϭΩ ̶ϬΑ ϢϠχ ؐϴ٫ ̶Ηή̯ ̶Ϩ̳Ω ̶ϬΑ ΖϨΤϣ فγ Ωήϣ ؟ϳ لف٫ έΎ̰η Ύ̯ ϝΎμΤΘγ΍ ٪ΩΎϳί فγ ΐγ ΕέϮϋ ؐϴϣ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ 

لف٫ 

̶ΘϨΑ ΕέϮϋ ؟θϴϤ٫ ؟ϧΎθϧ Ύ̯ ؏ϮϴΗΩΎϳί ̶̯ ؏ϭέ΍ΪόϤΟ έϭ΍ αϮ٫ ̶̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ لؐϴ٫ ̶Ηή̯ 

̶ΗϮ٫ έϭήο ̶ϓΎμϧ΍Ύϧ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ ΕέϮϋ ̶δ̯ Ζϗϭ α΍ ف٫ ΎΘՌΎ̯ ̶̩ή̡ ̶̯ ϥ΍ΪϧΎΧ ̶δ̯ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ΐΟ ΕΎϗϭ΍ ήΜ̯΍ 

Ϯ̯ ϢՍδγ ήΒϴϟ վտϧΎΑ ؟̯ ف٫ ̵έϭήο فϴϟ α΍ لف٫ ΎΗ̡֑ Ύϧή̯ ϡΎ̯ ̶ϬΑ ϥ΍έϭΩ ف̯ α΍ έϭ΍ ̶̴̩ί Ϯ̯ ؏ϮΗέϮϋ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ لف٫ 

έϮσ ̵έϮϓ ϮΟ ف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΎϨΑ ٪έ΍Ω΍ Ύδϳ΍ έϭ΍ ف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΎϨΑ ϥϮϧΎϗ ΖΨγ فϴϟ ف̯ φϔΤΗ ف̯ αϮϣΎϧϭ Εΰϋ ̶̯ ΕέϮϋ Ζϗϭ فΗή̯ ϢΘΧ 

لϮ٫ ϞλΎΣ ΪμϘϣ Ϟλ΍ ؟̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ ̶٫ Ϧ̰Ϥϣ ؟ϳ ήϴϐΑ فΌ̯ ϢΘΧ φϔΤΗ ϡΪϋ Ύ̯ ΕέϮϋ لف΋Ύ̪Ϩ٬̡ ̮Η έ΍Ωή̯ ήϔϴ̯ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮϣΰϠϣ ή̡ 

؟ϧ΍ϭή̡ Ύ̯ 

--- 41 --- 

ΕΎηέ΍ΰ̳ 

̵Ω΍ί΁ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϡΎϤΗ έϭ΍ ف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΩ έ΍ήϗ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ήϴϏ ή̡ έϮσ ̵έϮϓ Ϯ̯ ϢՍδγ ήΒϴϟ վտϧΎΑ ل1 

لؐϴ΋ΎΟ فΌϳΩή̯ ϢΘΧ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ϡΎϤΗ ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ̵έΎΟ 

فϟ΍ϭ فϧή̯ ΖϧΎϋ΍ ̶̯ α΍ Ύϳ ؏Ϯ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϟ΍ϭ 

فϧή̯ ΖΧϭήϓϭΪϳήΧ ̶̯ ؏ϭΩήϣ έϭ΍ ؏Ϯ̪Αϭ ؏ϮΗέϮϋ 

ل2 

لف΋ΎΟ ̵Ω ΍ΰγ ̶΋Ύ٬Θϧ΍ Ϯ̯ ٪ήϴϏϭ έ΍ΪόϤΟ Ω΍ήϓ΍ 

̵Ω ΍ΰγ ΖΨγ Ϯ̯ فϟ΍ϭ 

فϧ֐ϮΗ έϭ΍ ف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΎϨΑ ϥϮϧΎϗ فϴϟ ف̯ ΖχΎϔΣ ̶̯ αϮϣΎϧϭ Εΰϋ ̶̯ ؏ϮΗέϮϋ 

ل3 

لف΋ΎΟ

΍ΰγ ΖΨγ Ϯ̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ فϟ΍ϭ فϧή̯ ̵ίέϭ ϑϼΧ έϭ΍ ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ΪϨΑ ή̡ έϮσ ̵έϮϓ ΎϨϴϟ ϡΎ̯ فγ ؏Ϯ̪Α 

فϳΩ 

έ΍ήϗ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ήϴϏ ؏Ϯ٫ فΗή̯ έϮΒΠϣ ή̡ ΖϘθϣ ̵ήΒΟ Ϯ̯ Ωήϓ ̶δ̯ ϮΟ Ν΍ϭέϭ Ϣγέ ˬـΪ٫Ύόϣ ϡΎϤΗ 

Ϯ٫ ̶Ό̳ ̶Ϭ̯έ ή̡ έϮσ ف̯ ΖϧΎϤο αΎ̡ ف̯ ̮ϟΎϣ Ύϳ Ϧ٫έ Ω΍Ϊϴ΋ΎΟ 

̶̯ 

--- 42 --- 

Ϧ̯έΎ̯ 

ل4 

ل5 

لف΋ΎΟ ̵Ω 

لؐϴ΋ΎΟ 

έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̶δ̯ ή̳΍ ل6 

لف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ έ΍ΰ̳΍ϭ ή̡ έϮσ ̵έϮϓ فγ΍ϮΗ 

فϴϟ ف̯ فϨϬ̯έ ίΎΑ فγ فϨϴϟ ̶̴θϴ̡ ΩΎ٬ϧ ϡΎϧ فγ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭΪϧέΎ̯ ف̯ ϥ΍ Ύϳ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

؟ՍϬΑ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ فδϳ΍ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ لؐϴ΋ΎΟ 

فΌ̯ ϢΘΧ ـϮϋΩ ϝϮγ Ύϳ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ̵έ΍ΪΟϮϓ فՌϮϬΟ ή̡ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

ل7 

لف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΎϨΑ ϥϮϧΎϗ 

لؐϴ٫ فΗ΍ϭή̯ Ϣ΋Ύϗ فγ Ζ̴ϬΑ ̶Ϡϣ ̶̯ ՋϳήՍδΠϣ ؟ϗϼϋ έϭ΍ βϴϟϮ̡ ˬϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ 

ل8 

ή̡ έϮσ ̶λϮμΧ 

لϒϳ΍ ϝϮϘϧ ̶̯ ϦΟ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ فՌϮϬΟ ٪Ϊη Ϣ΋Ύϗ ή̡ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ف̯ ϒϳήη Ύϧ΍έ έϭ΍ ϡϮϴϗ Ύϧ΍έ ؐϴϣ ϭήϴϬ̡ ̶΋ΎϬΑ ؟ϧΎϬΗ 

ϥ΍έϭΩ ف̯ ٪Ύϣ ϭΩ ؟Θηΰ̳ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ ϡΎϤΗ ؟ϳ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ έΩΎλ Ϣ̰Σ 

Ύ̯ فϧή̯ ϢΘΧ ή̡ έϮσ ̵έϮϓ ؐϴ٫ ՊέϮ̡έ ϒϟ لέ΁ ل̶΋΁ 

لف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ؏Ύγ΍ή٫ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟̯ΎΗ فϬΗ فΌ̳ ف΋΍ή̯ Ϣ΋Ύϗ فγ Ζ̴ϬΑ ̶Ϡϣ ̶̯ ՋϳήՍδΠϣ έϭ΍ βϴϟϮ̡ 

ϊοϭ ؟Ϙϳήσ ϥΎγ΁ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧ΍ϮϨΑ վέΎ̯ ̶ΘΧΎϨη ̶ϣϮϗ ف̯ ؏ϮϐϟΎΑ έϭ΍ ؏ϭΩήϣ ˬ؏ϮΗέϮϋ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϡΎϤΗ ل10 

ؐϴ٬ϧ ؟̴Ο ̶δ̯ فγ ؟Οϭ ̶̯ ΖϘθϣ ̵ήΒΟ ٪ϭ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ فΌ̳ ف΋΍ϮϨΑ ؐϴ٬ϧ վέΎ̯ ̶ΘΧΎϨη ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ Ϊμϴϓ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ 

لف٫ ΎΗή̯ ΖΧΎϨη ̶΋Ϯ̯ ̶̯ ϥ΍ ̶٫ ؟ϧ έϭ΍ فΘ̰γΎΟ 

؟ϳ έϭ΍ ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ؟ϧ ϞΧΩ فΑ فγ 

؏Ϯϴ̴ϬΟ 

؏Ϯ٫Ύ̳ ζ΋Ύ٫έ ̶̯ ϥ΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ή̡ έϮσ ̵έϮϓ ل11 

لؐϴ΋ΎΟ ̵Ωή̯ ϞϘΘϨϣ ϡΎϧ ف̯ ϥ΍ ؏Ύϴ̴ϬΟ 

̶δϳ΍ Ύϳ ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ΩΎΑ΁ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ήϬ̳ فΑ ؐϴϣ ؏ϮϤϴ̰γ ̶θ΋Ύ٫έ ؟ϟήϣ ΕΎγ ˬ؟ϟήϣ ̨ϧΎ̡ ف̯ ΖϣϮ̰Σ ل12 

ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϪΗΎγ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϡΎ̯ ή̡ ؏ϮՍϬΑ ̱Ϯϟ ؟ϳ ؟̯ΎΗ ؏Ϯ٫ Ωή̳Ωέ΍ ف̯ ؏ϮՍϬΑ ϮΟ ؐϴ΋ΎΟ ̶΋ΎϨΑ ؐϴϤϴ̰γ ̶θ΋Ύ٫έ ̶Όϧ ̶΋Ϯ̯ 

لؐϴ̰γ ٪έ Ω΍ί΁ فγ Ζϓή̳ ̶̯ 

Ϊμϴϓ ΪόΑ ف̯ ήϤϋ ̶̯ ϝΎγ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ ـϭήγ ̮ϳ΍ ـέΎϤ٫ لف٫ έΎϤϴΑ ΖϳήΜ̯΍ 

̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ل13 

فϧΎΟϮ٫ Ϣ̯ ̶΋ΎϨϴΑ Ω΍ήϓ΍ Ϊμϴϓ ؟̰ΒΟ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ έΎ̰η Ύ̯ ؏ϮϳέΎϤϴΑ ̵ΪϠΟ Ω΍ήϓ΍ Ϊμϴϓ ϪՌΎγ ؟̰ΒΟ لف٫ ̶ΗΎΟϮ٫ ̶Α ̶Ռ Ϯ̯ Ω΍ήϓ΍ 

ζ΋΍Ϊϴ̡ ف̪Α Ϊμϴϓ έϭ΍ 

ؐϴ٫ فΗΎΟήϣ فϠ٬̡ فγ ζ΋΍Ϊϴ̡ ف̪Α Ϊμϴϓ لؐϴ٫ فΗΎΟϮ٫ έϮΒΠϣ فγ فϧήϬ̡ فϨϠ̩ ΚϋΎΑ ف̯ 

٪ΩΎϳί έϭ΍ فϨϠϣ ؟ϧ ̭΍έϮΧ ̶Ϭ̩΍ έϭ΍ ف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ ̶Ϥ̯ ̶̯ ϦθϳήՌϮϴϧ ؐϴϣ ؏ϮΗέϮϋ لؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ έΎ̰η Ύ̯ ؏ϮϳέΎϤϴΑ ϒϠΘΨϣ Ζϗϭ ف̯ 

̶λϮμΧ فϴϟ ف̯ ΖΤλ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟̯ ف٫ ̵έϭήο فϴϟ α΍ لؐϴ٫ ̶ΗΎΟϮ٫ ̶ϫ֐ϮΑ فϠ٬̡ فγ Ζϗϭ ΚϋΎΑ ف̯ ΖϨΤϣ 

ل؏Ϯ٫ ϞϣΎη ̶ϬΑ فϧΎΧ Ύϔη ̶Θθ̳ ؐϴϣ 

ϦΟ لؐϴ΋ΎΟ فΌ̯ Ϣ΋Ύϗ ήՍϨγ Ϟ̰ϳտϴϣ 

έϭ΍ ؏Ϯϟ΍ϭ فϧή̯ ̭ϮϠγ ̵ίΎϴΘϣ΍ ήϴϏ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ Ϧϴ̪γή̯ فϴϟ α΍ ف٫ Ϧϴ̪γή̯ ΖϳήΜ̯΍ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ل14 

لف΋ΎΟ ̶̯ ̶΋΍ϭέέΎ̯ ϑϼΧ ف̯ Ω΍ήϓ΍ فϟ΍ϭ فϧή̯ ϥΎϤϠδϣ ف̯ή̯ ΍ϮϏ΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮΗέϮϋ ̶̯ ϥ΍ 

٪έ΍Ω΍ Ύϳ ̶δϨΠϳ΍ έ΍Ω ΐϧΎΟ ήϴϏ فΌϟ ف̯ فϧ΍ϭή̯ Ϊϣ΁έΩ ϞϤϋ ή̡ α΍ έϭ΍ فϧ΍ϮϟΩ ϕϮϘΣ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ل15 

Ύ̯ α΍ لـΩ ϡΎΠϧ΍ ξ΋΍ήϓ ΖΤΗ ف̯ Ի̶Ϥψϋ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ Ύϳ ؟ϴϟΎϋ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ Ζγ΍έ ٪΍ήΑ ٪έ΍Ω΍ ؟ϳ لف΋ΎΟ ΎϳΎϨΑ Ϯ٫ Ϣ΋Ύϗ ή̡ ؏ϭΩΎϴϨΑ ϞϘΘδϣ ϮΟ 

؏ϮϬΗΎ٫ 

ف̯ ؏Ϯ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ՋϨϤՌέΎ̢ϳվ ήΒϴϟ ˬՋϳήՍδΠϣ Ջ̯ήՍγվˬՋϳήՍδΠϣ ؟ϗϼϋ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ Ϯ٫ فγ ؟ϴϟΎϋ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ Ϣ̯ فγ Ϣ̯ ٪΍ήΑήγ 

لؐϴ٬ϧ ϊϗϮΗ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ̶̯ ϑΎμϧ΍ فγ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΘϠϴϬ̯ ؐϴϣ 

ϮΟ ؐϴ΋ΎΟ فΌ̯ Ϣ΋Ύϗ ϞϧϮϴΑήՌ فϴϟ ف̯ ΖϋΎϤγ ̶̯ Ϟ΋Ύδϣ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ Ϣ΋΍ήΟ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

ل16 

لؐϳή̯ Ϟ΋΍ήՌ ̵ήϤγ

ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ ٪ϭ ؟̯ ف΋ΎΟ Ύ٬̯ ؟ϳ ̶ϬΑ فγ ΖϣϮ̰Σ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϨϟΎ̰ϧ فγ ̶̳Ϊϧί ̶̯ ̶ϣϼϏ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ل17 

؏Ϯϧ΍ΪϧΎΧ έϭΩΰϣ ϥ΍ ؟̯ΎΗ ف΋ΎϨΑ فΑϮμϨϣ ̶λϮμΧ فϴϟ ف̯ ΩϮΒ٬Αϭ Ρϼϓ ̶̯ ؏Ϯϧ΍ΪϧΎΧ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ϫ̯ϻ فϟ΍ϭ فϨδΑ ؐϴϣ 

α΍ ̵έ΍Ω ؟ϣΫ ؟ϳ فϴϟ ف̯ ΖϣϮ̰Σ لـή̯ ήδΑ ̶̳Ϊϧί Ρήσ ̶̯ ̵ή٬η Ω΍ί΁ ̮ϳ΍ لϮ٫ ϒϗ΍ϭ فγ ΖϴϤ٫΍ ̶̯ ̵Ω΍ί΁ Ϟδϧ ̶Όϧ ̶̯ 

؟ϳ ΐϠτϣ Ύ̯ α΍ ϮΗ ̶Ό̳ ̶̯ ؟ϧ ϞϳΪΒΗ έ΍ί ΖϟΎΣ ̶̯ ϥ΍ ή̳΍ لف٫ Ϧϴ̪γή̯ 

Ω΍ΪόΗ Ϊμϴϓ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟̯ ف٫ Ϣ٫΍ ̶ϬΑ فϴϟ 

لف٫ ΎΗΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ̭ϮϠγ ̵ίΎϴΘϣ΍ ήϴϏ فγ ؏ϮϤϠδϣ ήϴϏ ؐϴϣ ϥΎΘδ̯Ύ̡ ؟̯ ف٫ ΎΘ̰γΎΟ Ύϴϟ ̶ϬΑ 

ήϳήΤΗ Ϊ΋΍ί ΕΎΤϔλ ΪϨ̩ ؐϴϣ ՊέϮ̡έ ̵ήϴϣ ؟̯ ؏Ϯ٫ ΎΘ٫Ύ̩ ̶ϓΎόϣ ̶̯ ΕΎΑ α΍ ؐϴϣ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ ΕΎηέ΍ΰ̳ϭ ΕΎηέΎϔγ ϥ΍ 

ϖϓ΍ Ύϴϧ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ ϥΩ فΌϧ έϭ΍ Ύ̳Ϯ٫ ϞΒϘΘδϣ Ύ̯ ̵Ω΍ί΁ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ϞΒϘΘδϣ ϻ΍ϭ فϧ΁ ؟̯ ؏Ϯ٫ ΎΗή̯ 

Ϊϴϣ΍ ؟ϳ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΌ̳Ϯ٫ 

لΎ̳Ϯ٫ ωϮϠσ 

؟ϳή̰η 

έ΍ΪόΑΎΗ 

- - ϥΎΧ Ϳ΍ ϥΎδΣ΍ 

έϮ٫ϻ Ϣψϋ΍Ϊ΋Ύϗ ωέΎη ˬϦθϨϴϣ Ϫ̴Ϩγ ϝΎϳΩ 

[Editorís note: In this detailed report, the president of the Bhatta Mazddor Mahaz describes 

the brick-kiln workersí various duties and then offers an account of the Peshgi system, the 

exploitation of workersí families, sexual abuse of women, and the ësaleí or transfer of workers 

from one kiln to another. He also makes the following points: Attempts to secure the release 

of bonded labour at brick-kilns through court orders began in 1969. In 1970 the Punjab 

Governor issued an ordinance to extend the provisions of the Factory Act 1934 to brick-kilns 

but the move proved to be ineffective. The question of brick-kiln workersí wages was taken 

up by the Minimum Wages Board in 1975 and instead of giving relief to workers it reduced 

the bricklayersí wages from Rs 12 per 1000 bricks to Rs nine. However, the union 

succeeded in persuading some employers to raise the wage to Rs 15 per 1000 bricks. Then 

follows an account of extended litigation as workers moved the courts for relief and the 

employers implicated them in criminal cases. The Labour Department did nothing to help the 

bonded workers. 

The recommendations are: Bonded labour should be declared unlawful and all 

advances cancelled. Those engaged in sale of women and children should be punished. 

Child labour on brick-kilns should be prohibited. All false cases against brick-kiln workers 

should be withdrawn. Identity cards should be issued to brick-kiln workers and their housing 

needs met.] 

REPORT BY BRICK-KILN OWNERSí ASSOCIATION 

Report on the points in issue on behalf of Bhatta Owners Association. It is 

respectfully submitted. 

In the meeting held in the office of learned Advocate-General, bhatta owners were 

asked to submit a report in writing on the following issues:- 

(1) Regulation of wages, and 

(2) Method of recovery of balance of advance from the labourer on his leaving work. 

In regard to issue No.2, allegation is that for the payment of balance of advance the 

labourer is transferred to new bhatta owner and the balance is received by the previous 

owner from the new owner. This allegation is totally incorrect. The fact is that advance is 

obtained voluntarily which has become custom with a labourer for the work to be done by 

him at piece rate and is to be adjusted against the wages to be earned by him during the 

period of work. If the work is finished, the labourer is free to seek fresh engagement and 

even if the balance is not adjusted and he is not willing to work there is no restraint on him to 

leave the work and to go for some work of his choice with other person. The custom is so 

--- 43 ---

strongly established about the work and adjustment of advance that it is considered to be a 

matter of mutual trust and respectability among the bhatta owners and the labourers and it is 

not breached by either party. For the sake of maintaining his own reputation as a good 

labourer it is considered by him to be his duty to pay back the balance when he gets new 

engagement with new owners. It is solemnly stated that he is neither chased nor bothered for 

the balance but voluntarily according to the customary mode he himself feels obliged to pay 

back the balance of the advance, not adjusted against the work to the previous owner. There 

is no question of transfer of labourer by one bhatta owner to another bhatta owner for the 

balance due from him. Other details would be submitted under the relevant issues. 

Now the first issue as to the regulation of wages is taken up and the factual position 

is that the wages of the various categories of labourers engaged by a contractor, to whom 

the contract is awarded by bhatta owner are regulated by the Government under the 

Minimum Wages Ordinance (XXXIX of 1961) and the notification as it has become available 

was issued lastly on 10th October, 1983 published in the Punjab Gazette dated 13th 

November, 1983. It is slated in the notification that Minimum Wages Board Punjab having 

reviewed its recommendations in exercise of powers under section 7 of the Minimum Wages 

Ordinance 1961 by conducting the enquiry and considering objections and suggestions 

received in pursuance of the Notification dated 16th October, 1981 has recommended to the 

Government of Punjab revision of the rates of wages declared under the said notification. 

The province has been divided into two zones for the purpose of workers in brick-kilns 

industry and the schedule has been provided fixing the rates of wages in two zones. In case 

of Pathai Wala brick-layer whose case is in hand, the rate in ìAî Zone is fixed at Rs.34 per 

thousand bricks and for B Zone Rs.31 per thousand bricks: But the brick-layer is engaged by 

the contractor at a higher rate than fixed for per thousand bricks und a few months back the 

Bhatta Owners Association had decided to raise the rate to Rs.50 per thousand bricks in 

Lahore and Rs.45 per thousand bricks in Kasur. If the Government would revise the rates 

and if it is fixed higher than the proposed rates, that shall be followed and some percentage 

more than the rates to be fixed by the Government would be paid to the bricks-layer to keep 

up harmony between the contractor and the labourer. Even otherwise there is no dispute 

between the contractor and the labourer about the payment of wages being regulated and 

contracted between the parties which is above the rates fixed by the Government. At one 

time just to harass the contractors and the bhatta owners some frivolous petitions were filed 

under the Payment of Wages Act but on contest no one could prove his case for withholding 

the wages or non-payment of the wages. Decisions taken by the authority are attached for 

perusal. As a matter of fact the Bhatta owners have never denied the wages. Wages 

according to the regulated rates are paid to contractor for the labourers engaged by him, 

rather at the higher rate through contract which has been faithfully honoured in all cases and 

always. 

Second Issue as complained is not based on any authentic material. It is a long 

standing practice which is customarily followed by the contractor and the labour that for the 

bhatta season which is not run during rainy days and in bitter cold the contractor secures the 

labourer who demands advance payment for the work to be done during the season for his 

benefit and advantage and to meet his requirements. The contractor by force of condition is 

obliged to concede to his demand for advance with a view to secure the supply of katcha 

bricks for the brick-kiln which involves an expenditure of not less than Rs.50,000 to burn first 

fire in the kiln and to continue the fire with the regular supply of katcha bricks. If the fire in the 

kiln is extinguished for non-availability of the katcha bricks then for burning fire again in the 

kiln similar cost and loss in semi burnt bricks worth Rs.50,000 is involved which would 

naturally burden the bhatta owner with extra expenditure and make him to suffer the loss in 

bhatta business. Thus bhatta owners in order to secure the regular supply of katcha bricks 

and the labourer and the contractors exploiting that situation demand excessive advance 

which some time is not adjusted against the work done during the season by the labourer of 

--- 44 ---

the category to which the complainant belongs. Bhatta owner at the end of the season 

strikes the balance with the Contractor in the matter of labourers engaged by him and if the 

balance remains outstanding that is shown to the labourer and his thumb mark is obtained as 

settlement. The matter of account is never in dispute between the owner, contractor and the 

labourer. If the labourer is not prepared to work for the next season he is given the release 

chit and he is at liberty to go for any engagement of his choice with any person. It is the 

mutual trust of the parties which holds the obligation of payment of balance and interest and 

when the labourer gets new situation and advance he pays, back the balance to the previous 

owner but there is no coercion exercised against him by the owner. This customary mode of 

payment of balance is never objected to by the labourer who himself has created the 

situation by taking excessive advance and adjusting payment towards that. 

That there are about lac of such category of labourers in the Punjab alone but they 

have never objected to this customary mode of advance and payment and the bhatta owners 

have also not violated any rule of morality in relation to them. Only in the recent past 

motivated and vicious campaign has been started by persons other than the labourers going 

for habeas corpus, giving wrong impression that the balance of advance payable by them 

would be wiped off and they would remain no longer liable to pay the balance of advance 

taken from any bhatta owner. They have based such complaint on the incorrect statement 

that the bhatta owners transfer the labourers for the recovery of balance of advance to the 

new contractor and if the balance is not paid they are forcibly brought back to work for the 

outstanding amount. This is totally a wrong statement with the motive to disturb the harmony 

of labour relations and to exploit the situation for political purpose. 

It is suggested that elimination of payment of advance would not be in the interest of 

contractor and the labourer engaged for the bhatta owners and may not work practically but 

before any step is taken it appears necessary that proper survey may be conducted under 

the supervision of a Labour Court to ascertain the wishes of the labourers whether they 

desire to end the practice of taking advance from the contractor of bhatta owners. If they 

agree that such a practice should be abolished the bhatta owners have no objection to that 

course and they will abide by the decision of the court but the existing advances which are 

due from the labourers who had left the work and gone to some other contractor for 

engagement should be secured in a reasonable manner so that it may not become a practice 

to take advance and leave work, which is not good for the economy of the country. In future 

whatever measure would be suggested by the Government in the matter of advance 

payment to the labourer that shall be followed faithfully by the bhatta owners. However it is 

suggested that advance is an incentive and attraction and also advantageous to meet certain 

requirements by the labour. It should be reduced after proper enquiry to such a proportion as 

would be conveniently adjustable against the work to be done by the labourer. 

In Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan it is provided that State 

shall ensure the elimination of exploitation and the gradual fulfillment of fundamental 

principles, from each according to his ability, to each according to his work. 

In the present case according to the work the rates of wages are being fixed by the 

Government under the Minimum wages Ordinance 1961. On the completion of the work one 

becomes entitled to the Wages as provided by the law. There is no provision for advance 

payment for work but if the mode of advance payment has been customary introduced by the 

parties in any field of activity and it is not to the advantage of one party only but also to the 

advantage of the other party, it is suggested that reasonable amount of advance may be 

allowed in such cases so that the relationship should be secured which would work for the 

benefit of both. 

It is made clear that the labourer engaged by the contractor is piece rated and it is 

the effort of every labourer to reach maximum target within minimum time. The children and 

women who are accustomed to labour as helper to the male member make their 

--- 45 ---

contributions in the work to earn maximum. They are not engaged by the contractor in unit 

but only the male member is engaged and it is upto him to associate his other family 

members or not. There is no compulsion by the. contractor that should mark whether (sic). It 

depends upon the condition of the family to work in unit or not and if they are not prepared to 

work in unit the contractor never objects to the work of the male member. Choice is with the 

male member and the other members of the family. 

The site for bhatta almost in all cases 'is rented land and the site is shifted if the earth 

and water are exhausted at the particular site, which form the material for the manufacture of 

the bricks. Whatever improvised arrangement becomes possible it is made and that is 

enjoyed by the labourers without any sort of payment and totally free. To make the point 

clear it is submitted that no interest, fine or any sort of addition is made to the advance by the 

bhatta owners in the account of labourer. It is only the advance which is adjusted against the 

work being done by the labourer. Account is maintained meticulously and that is periodically 

signed by the labourer to whom the payment is advanced. Account is also personally 

maintained by the labourer. This account is open to inspection by any one who is authorised. 

In most of the cases habeas corpus filed in the names of labourers by outsiders have 

failed and the allegations found to be vexatious. Copies of certain orders available with the 

bhatta owners are submitted for perusal. 

As explained above, issue No. 1 is totally-out of context about which there is no 

dispute existing between the parties and issue No.2 may be regulated in reasonable manner 

as suggested which should be both for the benefit of the owner and the labourer engaged by 

the contractor and whatever measure would be proposed by the competent authority that 

would be complied with. So far as this complaint is concerned it has no truth and is moved 

for gaining political advantage just to disturb the harmony of the labourer and bhatta owners 

and to deprive them of the advantages of the system of working smoothly for the last so 

many years. Cuttings and publications are attached for perusal and such action as the 

Honourable Court deems fit to take in the circumstances of the case in accordance with law 

against the exploiters. 

--- 46 --- 

(Sd.) 

Muhammad Shoaib Khan Niazi, 

President Bricks-Kiln Owners Association, 

Punjab

REPORT ON THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF LABOUR ENGAGED IN 

BRICK-KILN INDUSTRY 

1. The importance of centuries old bricks-kiln Industry cannot be underestimated even 

in present times as its products constitute one of the basic requirements for the 

development of the country. The labour engaged in this industry is specialised one 

and the relationship between the employer and the employee is of a very special 

nature which are visibly distinct from the industrial relations existing in other 

industries. The complex and intricate problems of bricks-kiln workers have attained a 

very high magnitude owing to general awareness of workers, exposure of working 

conditions of bricks-kiln workers and malpractices of bricks-kiln owners in mass 

media and endeavours of trade unions and human rights groups. The problems of 

bonded labour in brick-kiln Industries is the result of following interconnected factors:- 

(i) Prevalence of system of advance payment to workers commonly known as 

ìPeshgeesî; 

(ii) Presence of middle man; 

(iii) Shortage of semi-skilled labour for brick-kiln industry. 

2. As far as the applicability of labour laws is concerned, operation of brick-kiln Industry 

is distinct from that of other industries where the 'precincts/ premises are well defined. 

Brick-kilns have no bounded premises as no wall and gate exist around any brick-kiln. 

The factual position is that the brick-kiln owners select a site where ìkatchaî bricks 

are prepared. This site continues changing depending upon the depth of digging and 

the consent of the owner of the land. Sometimes these sites are located far away 

from the actual location of brick-kiln. Consequently the application of Factories Act, 

1934 and other relevant legislation becomes difficult as the number of workers at the 

actual site seldom rises to 10 or more and thus provisions of the Act are not attracted. 

The inspections conducted by Inspecting Officers of the Labour Department and 

prosecutions of brick-kiln owners and meagre fines imposed by the courts have not 

so far weeded out the evils of a well-entrenched system. 

3. The practice of advances given to the workers of brick-kiln Industry is age-old, 

traditional and in-built part of the system. The liabilities of advance in certain cases 

never get paid up during lifetime of workers, the succeeding generation thus bear the 

burden of clearing the liabilities. The cases are not rare when a group of workers 

along with their family members are made to shift from one brick-kiln to another with 

their liabilities. 

4. As a matter of practice after payment of advances to brick-kiln workers, half of their 

wages are deducted against the loans with the result that workers are compelled to 

take more advances to make their both ends meet. The ever compounding 

advances bind the workers to a particular brick-kiln owner and those who dare to 

escape are brought back by using coercive methods. 

5. The institution of ìJamadarî - a middle man who supplies labour to brick-kiln owners 

is also responsible for augmenting the problems in the scenario of bonded labour. 

The middle man takes considerable sum of money as advance from owners and 

distributes it among his workers as remuneration for the work done or as advance. 

But occasionally, in consideration of greater sum of money, the Jamadar shifts his 

labour to another brick-kiln. The owner of the first brick-kiln enforces disgraceful 

methods to retrieve them. 

It may be added that the labour engaged in this industry is almost specialised one 

and no other category of workers is willing to take up this profession. Consequently 

--- 47 ---

the brick-kiln owners use every method both coercive and persuasive to attract this 

specialised labour to their brick-kiln. This state of affairs has tremendously enhanced 

the importance of middle man who plays a pivotal role in this business. 

6. Lately some labour organizations led by professional labour leaders have made inroads 

into this industry and have successfully created awareness among these 

workers. Mass communication media has also played an important role in 

highlighting the problems of workers of this industry. 

7. Despite the snag created by the announcement of judgment by Additional District 

and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad in Civil Appeal No.487 of 1984 pronouncing that in 

the presence of Section 80 of the Factories Act, 1934, the Act confines its application 

to Government owned industry only. (The judgment of Additional District Judge, 

Faisalabad has already been challenged in the Lahore High Court through a Civil 

Revision Petition No.CM/4051/C/85, dated 11-6-1985). The field staff of the 

Directorate of Labour Welfare, Punjab conduct inspections of brick-kilns to ensure 

the implementation of the relevant labour laws. Similarly the Punjab Labour Court 

No.2, Lahore has also held although on a different premises that brick-kilns are not a 

factory within the meaning of Factories Act, 1934 and even if it was construed to be, 

only those employees were entitled to statutory benefits who were employed on the 

brick-kilns and not otherwise. This interpretation excludes the workers employed to 

dig earth and to make ìkatchaî bricks from the ambit of Factories Act, 1934. It is, 

however, submitted that Civil Revision Petition indicated above challenging the 

judgment of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad requires early hearing and 

decision enabling the Directorate of Labour Welfare, Punjab to apply the Factories 

Act, 1934 on brick-kiln Industry without any impediment. 

8. Nevertheless, Directorate of Labour Welfare, Punjab with a view to ameliorating the 

lot of brick-kiln workers and putting an end to their exploitation has been making 

strenuous efforts and has taken the following steps :- 

(a) By a special notification issued on 28.6.1988, the Factories Act, 1934 has been 

made applicable to those Brick-kilns where five or more workers are employed. 

(b) The Administrative Department has been requested to revise minimum wages 

fixed as far back as November 13,1983 in order to make the same 

commensurate with the present days' price hike. 

(c) The Directorate of Labour Welfare, Punjab has also recommended to the 

Government that the scope of Social Security may also be extended to brick-kiln 

Industry and all medical facilities which are permissible to the industrial workers 

should be provided to the workers of brick-kiln industry. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. The evil of this bonded labour cannot be eradicated altogether unless a new 

legislation exclusively for brick-kiln workers is drafted and promulgated. The 

proposed legislation may either abolish the customary system of advance or the 

system of advance is lo be retained on account of some considerations, it may be 

regulated through some government agency. Advances already given to the workers 

be written off. A similar law has already been promulgated and enforced in India in 

1976 known as ìThe Bonded Labour System Abolition Act, 1976.î 

2. The concept and role of middle man known as ìJamadarî also be abolished through 

the special law. 

--- 48 ---

3. In order to resolve the residential problem of the brick-kiln workers, a quota for the 

allotment of residential plots/houses in Labour Colonies may be reserved for the 

brick-kiln workers. 

A NOTE BY MR RAFIQ BAJWA, ADVOCATE 

--- 49 --- 

Labour Welfare Directorate 

ϻ΍ϭ ΏΎϨΟ 

؟ϟΩΎΒΗ ϞϴμϔΘϟΎΑ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ ؏ϭΪϨ΋ΎϤϧ ٪Ωή̯ έήϘϣ فγ ϑήσ ̶̯ ΍άϫ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϧ ؐϴϣ 

-ف٫ 

٪ΩΎϳί Ζ٬Α ΐϠσ 

ؐϴ٫ ΕΎ٫ϮΟϭ ϞϳΫ ؟ΟέΪϨϣ ̶̯ ϝΎΣ ΕέϮλ ٪ΩϮΟϮϣ ؐϴϣ Ζδϧ΍Ω ̵ήϴϣ -Ύϴ̯ 

ϝΎϴΧ 

ήψϧ ζϴ̡ ف̯ Ω΍ΪόΗ ήϴΜ̯ ̶̯ ΕΎΟ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ ف٫ Ϣ̯ Ω΍ΪόΗ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ΘϓΎϳ ΖϴΑήΗ 

ϢϴϠδΗ ς΋΍ήη ̶̴ϧΎϣ ؟Ϩϣ ̶Ϩ̡΍ فγ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ έϭΩΰϣ فγ ؟Οϭ ̶̯ ̶Ϥ̯ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ΘϓΎϳ ΖϴΑήΗ έϭ΍ ̶ΗΩΎϳί ̶̯ ΐϠσ 

-ؐϴ٫ 

فΘϴϟ ΍ϭή̯ 

فΗή̯ فσ ς΋΍ήη ϮΟ ؐϴ٫ فΗΎΟ ϦΑ έ΍ΪόϤΟ Ύϳ ـΪϨ΋ΎϤϧ ف̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ̱Ϯϟ Ϫ̪̯ ϥ΍έϭΩ ف̯ ϞΣ΍ήϣ ϻΎΑ ؟ΟέΪϨϣ 

ϦΑ ؟θϴ̡ ̮ϳ΍ ̶ϬΑ ̵έ΍ΪόϤΟ ̶̯ Ϣδϗ α΍ ؐϴϣ ϝΎΣ ΕέϮλ ٪ΩϮΟϮϣ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΘϬ̯έ υϮΤϠϣ 

̶ϬΑ Ϯ̯ Ε΍ΩΎϔϣ فϨ̡΍ Ζϗϭ 

-ف٫ 

̶̰̩ 

-̶Ϡ̰ϧ 

Ϟ̩ Ϣγέ ̶̯ فϧή̯ ζϴ̡ Ύϳ فϧή̯ ΐϠσ ϡϮϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ؟̯ ؟ϳ ٪ϭ έϭ΍ ΍Ϯ٫ ΍ήΟ΍ Ύ̯ ΖϋΪΑ ̮ϳ΍ فγ ؟Οϭ ̶γ΍ 

؟ϧ ήψϧΪϣ Ϯ̯ ؏ϮϟϮλ΍ 

ف̯ ΖϧΎϣ΍ έϭ΍ ΖϧΎϳΩ ف̯ ή̯ ϝϮλϭ Ϣϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ˱ϼΜϣ -ؐϴ΋Ϯ٫ 

΍Ϊϴ̡ ؐϴΘϋΪΑ Ϊϳΰϣ فγ Ϣγέ α΍ 

ؐϴ٬ϧ΍ έϭ΍ ΎϨϴϟ ή̯ ΩΎΠϳ΍ فϘϳήσ ϒϠΘΨϣ ΩϮΧ ί΍ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧή̯ υϮϔΤϣ Ϯ̯ Ε΍ΩΎϔϣ فϨ̡΍ ή̯ ـΩ Ϣϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ Ύϳ ΎϨϬ̯έ 

-ΎϨϴϟ 

ή̯ έΎϴΘΧ΍ 

Ύϴ̳ Ϯ٫ ϞλΎΣ ϞΧΩ Ϯ̯ έտϴϟ έϭΩΰϣ ΩΎ٬ϧ ϡΎϧ έϭ ؟θϴ̡ ؟̯ ف٫ ̵Ω ή̯ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ϝΎΣ ΕέϮλ ̶δϳ΍ فϧ ؏ϮΘϋΪΑ ϻΎΑ ؟ΟέΪϨϣ 

ή̯ ωϭήη Ύϧή̯ ϝΎϤόΘγ΍ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ فϴϟ ف̯ ύϭήϓ ف̯ ؟θϴ̡ فϨ̡΍ έϭ΍ ήψϧ ζϴ̡ ف̯ Ε΍ΩΎϔϣ فϨ̡΍ فϧ ؏Ϯ٬ϧ΍ έϭ΍ 

فδϳ΍ ϥ΍έϭΩ ̶γ΍ -ف٫έ 

فΗή̯ ϞλΎΣ Ε΍ΩΎϔϣ فϨ̡΍ فγ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ή̯ ϦΑ ΎϤϨ٫΍έ ف̯ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ ΎϳΩ 

فϧ ؏Ϯ̳Ϯϟ ϥ΍ -فϬΗ 

ՋϨΠϳ΍ ف̯ ϥ΍ Ύϳ فϬΗ ـΪϨ΋ΎϤϧ ϮΗ Ύϳ ف̯ ή̰ϓ ΐϴΗΎ̰ϣ ϒϠΘΤϣ ϮΟ فΌ̳ Ϯ٫ ί΍Ϊϧ΍ ϞΧΩ ̶ϬΑ ̱Ϯϟ 

-ؐϴ٫ 

̶΋Ϯ٫ ̶Ϭ̯έ ̵έΎΟ ؏Ύϴ΋ΎϣήϓέΎ̯ ̶Ϩ̡΍ ΖΤΗ ف̯ ؏ϮϤϴ̰γ ̶ϬΠϤγ ̶̩Ϯγ 

̶ϟϮλϭ ̶̯ ϦΟ ؐϴ٫ ̶Ϭ̯έ ـΩ ̶̴θϴ̡ έϮτΑ ϡϮϗέ ̵έΎϬΑ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ήψϧ ζϴ̡ ف̯ Ε΍ΩΎϔϣ فϨ̡΍ فϧ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ 

فΗή̯ ϞλΎΣ ̶̴θϴ̡ 

έϮτΑ ϡϮϗέ ϮΟ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ -ؐϴ٫ 

فϬ̯έ ή̯ ϊοϭ فϘϳήσ ϒϠΘΨϣ فϨ̡΍ فϧ ؏Ϯ٬ϧ΍ ̶ϬΑ فϴϟ ف̯ 

̶Ϩ̡΍ έϭΩΰϣ Ϣϗέ ٪ΪϧΎϣ ̶ϗΎΑ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗΎΟ فϟ έ΍ΪόϤΟ ؟μΣ Ϫ̪̯ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΗΎΟ فϟ έտϴϟ έϭΩΰϣ ؟μΣ Ϫ̪̯ Ύ̯ α΍ ؐϴ٫ 

ξόΑ ؐϴ٬ϧ΍ ̵έΎΑ ήϳί ̶٬ϳ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΗΎΟ Ϯ٫ έΎΑ ήϳί έϭ΍ فΘϳΩ ή̯ ϊ΋Ύο έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΘϳΩ ή̯ ̧ήΧ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ ΖόϴΒσ 

ή̯ ΎϬՌ΍ ٪Ϊ΋Ύϓ Ύ̯ ̵έΎΑ έί α΍ ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ έտϴϟ ΩΎ٬ϧ ϡΎϧ فϨ̡΍ 

έϭ΍ ؏ϭέ΍ΪόϤΟ ؟όϓΩ ξόΑ έϭ΍ فϧή̯ ̶ΘϧΎϳΩΪΑ ؟όϓΩ 

فϴ̯ έΎϴΘΧ΍ ΕέΎΠΗ ̮ϳ΍ Ύϳ ؟θϴ̡ ̮ϳ΍ -έΎΑϭέΎ̯ 

̮ϳ΍ Ϟλ΍έΩ ؐϴϣ ـΩή̡ ف̯ ΖϣΪΧ ̶̯ فϧ΍ϭή̯ ϡίϼϣ Ϯ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ 

̶̯ فϧή̯ ϥΎϴΑ ϞϴμϔΗ ̶̯ ϦΟ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΗή̯ ϝΎϤόΘγ΍ فΑήΣ ϒϠΘΨϣ فϴϟ ف̯ ϞϴϤ̰Η ̶̯ ΪλΎϘϣ ϥ΍ فϨ̡΍ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ ف΋Ϯ٫ 

-ؐϴ٫ 

ؐϴϣ ϢϠϋ ف̯ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ϞοΎϓ ΕΎόϗ΍ϭ ϭ ΕϻΎΣ ήΘθϴΑ ؟̯ ف٫ ϦϴϘϳ فϬΠϣ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ Εέϭήο 

؏Ύ٬ϳ 

فδϳ΍ ή̡ ΢τγ ̶΋ΎΑϮλ έϭ΍ ̶όϠο ؟̯ Ύ̳ ؏Ϯ٫Ύ̩ ΕίΎΟ΍ ̶̯ فϧή̯ ΰϳϮΠΗ ؟ϳ ؐϴϣ ήϴϐΑ فΌ̳ ؐϴϣ ΕϼϴμϔΗ Ϊϳΰϣ 

٪ΪϋΎϗΎΑ ˬ؏Ϯ٫ ϦϴΑΎϣ ف̯ 

؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ϮΟ ΕΎΟ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ٪ϭ ϡΎϤΗ ؏Ύ٬Ο ـϭΎΟ ̶̯ Ϟϴ̰θΗ ̶̯ ؏ϭέ΍Ω΍ 

-ؐϴ٫έ 

ή̡ վέΎ̰ϳέ ف̯ ؏ϭέ΍Ω΍ ϥ΍ ϝϮϘϧ ̶̯ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ ؏Ϯ٫ վήՍδΟέ 

-1 

-2 

-3 

-4 

-5 

-6 

-7 

ϒϟ΍

؏ϭέ΍Ω΍ ϥ΍ -؏Ϯ٫ 

ζϴ̡ فϨϣΎγ ف̯ ؏ϭέ΍Ω΍ ϥ΍ فϴϟ ف̯ ̶ΜϟΎΛ ؏Ϯ٫ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ؐϴϣ ؟ϠδϠγ ف̯ ΕΎΟ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ϥ΍ ϮΟ ΕΎϋίΎϨΗ ϡΎϤΗ 

-؏Ϯ٫ 

ΪϨΑΎ̡ ف̯ α΍ ϦϴϘϳήϓ έϭ΍ ؐϳή̯ ؟Ϡμϴϓ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϨϨγ ϒϗΆϣ Ύ̯ ϦϴϘϳήϓ ؏ΎϴՍϴϤ̯ ̶̯ 

̶δ̯ ̶٫ ؟ϧ έϭ΍ ـϭΎΟ ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ؟ϧ ϢϴϠδΗ ٪ΪϨ΋ΎϤϧ Ύ̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ Ϯ٫ ؟ϧ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ΩϮΧ ϮΟ Ϯ̯ κΨη فδϳ΍ ̶δ̯ 

؟ϧ ϖϠόΗ ؟τγ΍ϭϼΑ فγ ؟θϴ̡ α΍ Ύ̯ βΟ ؐϴ΋ΎϨΑ έ΍Ω ٪Ϊ٬ϋ ΎϨ̡΍ Ϯ̯ ̶ϣΩ΁ فδϳ΍ ̶δ̯ ٪ϭ ؟̯ Ϯ٫ ΕίΎΟ΍ ؟ϳ Ϯ̯ ϦϴϧϮϳ έϭΩΰϣ 

α΍ ϮΟ Ϯ٫ ؟ϧ κΨη Ύδϳ΍ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ̶ϬΑ έ΍Ω ٪Ϊ٬ϋ Ύ̯ Ϧθϳέտϴϓ 

Ύϳ Ϧθϳ΍ ̶γϮδϳ΍ ̶δϳ΍ ̶δ̯ ̶̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ Ρήσ ̶γ΍ -Ϯ٫ 

--- 50 --- 

-Ϯ٫ 

ΎΘϬ̯έ ؟ϧ ϖϠόΗ فγ فθϴ̡ 

ϻΎΑ ؟ΟέΪϨϣ ٪ϭ ؟̯ Ϯ٫ ̵έϭήο ؟ϳ فϴϟ ف̯ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ فϠ٬̡ فγ فϧή̯ ϢΘΧ Ζϣίϼϣ ̶̯ ϡίϼϣ ̶δ̯ ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ 

٪ϭ ϮΗ 

ف٫Ύ̩ Ύϧή̯ ̭ήΗ Ζϣίϼϣ έϭΩΰϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ή̳΍ فγ Ρήσ ̶γ΍ έϭ΍ ؐϳΩ ωϼσ΍ ή̡ έϮσ ̵ήϳήΤΗ Ϯ̯ ـέ΍Ω΍ 

Ύϴ̯ έήϘϣ ̶ϬΑ Ζϗϭ ΐγΎϨϣ فϴϟ ف̯ ΕΎϋϼσ΍ ̶̯ Ϣδϗ α΍ -ـή̯ 

٪Ύ̳΁ فγ ϒϗϮϣ α΍ Ϯ̯ ـέ΍Ω΍ ϻΎΑ ؟ΟέΪϨϣ ̶ϬΑ 

-ـϭΎΟ 

Ϯ̯ տϨϓ α΍ -ؐϳή̯ 

Ζ̯ήη ή̡ έΎϴόϣ ٪Ωή̯ فσ έϭΩΰϣ έϭ΍ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؐϴϣ βΟ ـϭΎΟ Ύϴ̯ Ϣ΋Ύϗ տϨϓ ΩϮΒ٬Α ̮ϳ΍ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ή٫ 

Rafique Ahmad Bajwa 

٪ϮΟΎΑ ΪϤΣ΍ ϖϴϓέ 

-ـϭΎΟ 

Ύϴ̯ ϝΎϤόΘγ΍ فϴϟ ف̯ ΩϮΒ٬Α ̶̯ ؏ϭέϭΩΰϣ ςϘϓ 

[Editorís note: Mr Rafique Bajwa, Advocate, says the question of bonded labour on brickkilns 

has arisen because there is a shortage of skilled labour needed for brick-kilns and 

workers drive advantageous bargains with their employers. Some middle men have their 

own axe to grind. This has given birth to the undesirable system of peshgi. Then 

professionals, the so called labour leaders, have jumped into the fray. He suggests creation 

of institutions at district and provincial levels with whom all agreements between brick-kiln 

owners and workers should be registered. Nobody who is not a worker at a brick-kiln should 

be accepted as a representative of labour and the union should not include any outsider. 

Likewise no one who is not a bhatta owner should speak for bhatta owners.] 

REPORT BY ASMA JAHANGIR, ADVOCATE 

It is respectfully submitted:-- 

1. That the following report is being submitted by me to this Honourable Court regarding 

the conditions of women and children in the brick-kiln industry. 

2. That the facts .as reported to me and as studied by me are given below. This report 

only includes incidents which are officially reported or where circumstances exist for 

legal redress 

(a) Firstly it may be reported that slavery, slave like practices and bonded labour 

are exploitative practices as they result in gross abuse to the victims. The 

existence of bonded labour itself presupposes existence of conditions which 

are universally accepted as substandard and inhuman. Wherever exploitation 

of this nature prevails women and children bear a double burden of this 

exploitation. Women and children are vulnerable and a defenceless section 

of our society who are protected by special legislations for this very reason. 

Even the United Nations have categorized them as a disadvantaged group. 

Special Protective Standards and Declaration have been made for women 

and children. All constitutions of the world prohibit forced labour, bonded 

labour and slavery. Article 11(1) of our Constitution also forbids forced labour. 

Ώ 

Ν 

Ω 

Ϋ

CHILDREN 

It prohibits child labour below the age offourteen years in any factory, mine or 

other hazardous employment. 

(b) My report is based on personal interviews with women and children working 

in the brick-kiln industry. The sample interviewed is small as the bhattas are 

closed in this weather and very few families could be found at the premises. 

Even the ones present were not forthcoming and a tense atmosphere 

prevails at the bhatta premises owing the present matter being taken up by 

this Honourable Court. Other observations are based on my previous 

experience while working with the labourers. 

1. About 60% of the children start work with their families at the bhatta below the age of 

thirteen. The mortality rate amongst children is high and they are denied freedom to 

move out of the bhatta premises. 

2. Blindness is common amongst children of these labourers. Around one out of twenty 

families have blind children. The two families visited recently, one of Sheedan Bibi 

working at the bhatta of Virk Yakub at Sheikhupura and another Ghulam Bibi working 

at Bari bhatta have blind children. These families claim that the children were not 

born blind but were blinded because of ìSafaadaî in the mud which hits these 

children while digging. Blindness amongst old people is around 15 to 20 per cent. 

3. Some bhatta owners insist upon participation of children in the work force of the 

family. This is particularly demanded during the peak season. Mostly the parents do 

not resist child labour as it supplements their income. The resistance only comes 

when a child has to look after his/her siblings. It may be important to mention that not 

a single bhatta around Kasur or Lahore has any educational or medical facilities. 

4. There are incidents where children of brick-kiln labourers are kept as hostages when 

parents leave the bhatta. One recent case is of Thana Bhai Pheru at Bhatta Rana 

Sharif, where S.P. Kasur gave police help to one Mr. Zahid Dad Secretary-General of 

bhatta Mazdoor Mahaz to recover 3 female children aged eleven, seven and six from 

the bhatta of Sharif Kalia, Multan Road. The father of these children, Bashir Ahmad 

worked at the bhatta and when he left the owner refused to release the children. 

They were recovered after 2 months. The children were made to work without pay, 

maltreated and given inadequate food. They were dependent upon the Munshi and 

the owner's employees, who it is alleged, abused these children in return for giving 

them basic required food. The illegal detention of these children can be verified 

through SP Kasur but whether they were actually abused or not is an allegation. 

However, one of the girls still bears marks on her thighs. This could be a subsequent 

injury but this child gave a very vivid and clear account of her abuse. This child 

described a horrible picture of her maltreatment. She did not make an allegation 

against the owner but against his employees and as such she did not seem to be 

exaggerating her story. 

5. Another such incident took place a few months back at the Bhatta of Mian Arif, 

Mauza Kania Wala, Thana Sadar, Sheikhupura. The SP Sheikhupura got a child of 8 

years recovered from the bhatta premises. The mother of this child, Martha, worked 

at this bhatta and left because of gross ill-treatment. The bhatta owner kidnapped her 

two sons. One of her sons Arif Masih escaped and sought help. Again the secretary 

of their union got the child recovered through the police. On return the secretary of 

the union was attacked and he is still immobile. 

6. Another horrifying aspect which has affected the children of the labourers is a 

distortion of mental well-being. They live in fear, witness physical violence meted out 

--- 51 ---

WOMEN 

to their parents and are born in slavery. Their reactions are very different to normal 

children. For example unlike normal children they do not surround a car or vehicle 

entering the premises but run away into a shelter. The violence witnessed by them 

on their parents could breed an intense hatred of the entire society in the minds of 

these children. They are suspicious of all well clad people and have no ambition to 

study or dream of doing any other work but that of baking bricks. Their life is 

restricted to the bhatta premises and its activities. 

1. Women are an integral part of the labour force in the brick-kiln industry. They work 

along with men putting in as many hours and days. In addition they do the household 

work. Their workload is heavier than menís. 

2. Yet women are not recognised in the labour force and are invisible even in the 

statistical data kept by the labour department. This exclusion of women reduces the 

number of persons shown as employees by each bhatta. At a later stage this will 

affect the observance of any prescribed minimum wage. Since the wage of the family 

will be clubbed under the male member, the minimum wage per person will naturally 

decrease. If women are not officially recognised as an independent workforce they 

will be unable to get any benefit of labour laws. 

3. Marriage of young girls is resisted as this decreases the number of persons working 

in the bhatta. This of course is not a practice of all bhatta owners, but it has been 

particularly alleged by workers of bhattas near Chunian and Kasur district. It is 

insisted that ìWatta Sattaî marriage be performed so as to replace the labour force. 

Hence the lives of these labourers are in the total control of the owners. 

4. Women are given no maternity leave and are expected to work throughout their 

pregnancy and resume work two to three days after delivery. Some of the women 

admitted doing so voluntarily, as they needed extra income and could not survive if 

they did not work. Most women claim that even if they are unwell or even where a 

death has taken place in the family the owners insist on their presence at work. 

5. A system of prostitution dens runs at some of the bhattas. The Jamadarni normally 

plays the role of the pimp and it is said that at such bhattas the owners do not use 

force but are provided women through the Jamadarni Here, I must add that there is 

an overall disregard for moral values amongst the bonded labourers themselves. 

Promiscuity is acceptable and physical abuse on women an every day reality which 

is not given much thought. 

6. Some of the bhatta owners have also married pathari women who stay at the bhatta 

premises and carry out most of the immoral activities. For example Rana Sharif of 

Bhai Pheru married Sharifaan Bibi who was a pathair at the bhatta of Rao Oayyum. 

Sharifaan Bibi stays at the bhatta premises. A few others who have contracted 

marriages are Rana Sheikh and son of Haji Riaz namely Maqbool Riaz. All these 

pathairi wives live at the bhatta. 

7. During my recent interviews one Clara Bibi now working at bhatta of Haji Aslam near 

Bagh Wali Pulli, Lahore related an incident experienced by her while working at 

bhatta of Mian Akhtar, Gujranwala a year ago. Clara Bibi is a widow and has a grown 

up daughter. She alleges that the owner desired her daughter and forbade Clara Bibi 

from getting her daughter married anywhere. Clara Bibi claims she and her daughter 

got helpless at the hands of the owner who often called for her daughter. Eventually 

Clara Bibi and others helped to rescue the girl, who escaped and went to her uncle's 

house and married his son. Clara Bibi claims she was beaten up by the owner and 

eventually the owner on her behalf filed a complaint of abduction of her daughter. 

--- 52 ---

The in-laws of her daughter were taken to jail and eventually Clara Bibi herself left 

the bhatta premises with her children without any belongings. The abduction case is 

still in the trial court. 

8. Another old woman Jalan and her son who now work at a bhatta at Sheikhupura 

related to me the story of another abduction. Jalan, her son and his family worked at 

a bhatta of Yakub Virk, Gara Musali, Khan Baila, beyond Liaqatpur. Jalan Bibi's son 

has a wife and three daughters. Jamadar Khaliq, his brother Sattar and Azimu 

employees of the bhatta owner kept Jalan Bibi's daughter-in-law and the three granddaughters 

at the instructions of the owner. After much pleading they returned two 

grand-daughters. Jalan Bibi claims that her daughter-in-law and her grand-daughter 

aged one year have been sold elsewhere by Jamadar Khaliq and his accomplices. 

She and her son have no knowledge of the whereabouts of the two missing persons 

of their family. 

9. A girl of 14 years named Majidan Bibi was abducted by bhatta owner Abdul Shakur 

and his friend Hakam Ali resident of Jhagian Jhumran, P.S. Manga Mandi, Lahore. 

Majidan Bibi's mother filed an FIR No.127/88 dated 27-5-88 at Police Station Manga 

Mandi. Majidan Bibi was allegedly kept under illegal confinement for two months and 

she was subjected to rape many times by Hakam Ali. Hakam Ali got bail on the 

production of a Nikahnama, whereas bail of Majidan Bibi was rejected for nonprosecution. 

Majidan Bibi was at Kot Lakhpat Jail from 2.7.88 till 21.7.88. She was 

later granted bail after her mother located her whereabouts and applied for bail. 

Majidan Bibi claims she was threatened after her mother filed the FIR and was forced 

to make a statement before the Illaqa Magistrate 2m! Class Nawankot to the effect 

that she had voluntarily gone with the accused and consented to Nikah. Majidan's 

mother commented that if her daughter had voluntarily gone to contract marriage, 

she had no reason to object, as any marriage to an economically better off person 

would normally be welcome. The rejection of her bail for non-prosecution also 

indicates the intentions of the accused. Both Majidan and her co-accused are on bail. 

Majidan and her mother claim they have grave fear of being physically harmed by the 

accused. They have shifted their residence several times. At present their address is 

Bhabra stop, New Abadi Bhabra, Lahore. 

10. A F.I.R. dated 27-2-88 was filed by Shaukat Masih at the Police Station Saddar, 

Kasur alleging an attempt of rape on his wife. Copy of FIR and application by 

Shaukat Masih to S.H.O., Saddar Kasur is attached as Annexure 'A'. 

11. Another FIR was filed by one Sharifan Bibi at Police Station Bhai Pheru dated 

22-1-88. Sharifan Bibi and her family worked at the bhatta of Rana Sharif. Owing to 

their inability to make the required number of bricks, Sharifan's mother and the 

munshi exchanged hot words. Sharifan Bibi alleged she and her mother were 

paraded naked by the munshi, the owner and some other employees of the bhatta. 

F.I.R. attached as Annexure 'R'. 

12. A report filed by Sheema Bibi is attached as Annexure ëCí where Sheema alleged 

that she had been sold by Malik Jahangir, owner, to recover the loan left behind by 

her deceased husband. 

13. Several incidents were reported and repeated where widows and abandoned women 

were sold in order to recover loans. 

14. Another abduction case reported was of Palo Bibi, her daughter and one son. Palo 

Bibi's son Manzoor Masih made an application to I.-G. Police Lahore claiming that 

Rana Mohammad Yusuf S.H.O. Kahna Police Station, Pir Mukhtar Shah M.P.A. 

owner of Bhatta No.66 Bhai Pheru had abducted his mother and sisters. After the 

complaint the abductees were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate Kahna for 

--- 53 ---

ecording of their statements that they were not abducted. In that very court the 

abductees openly told the Illaqa Magistrate that they were being forced to make this 

statement as one of their sons had been kept by the police and they had no choice 

but to make this statement. On inquiring it was also discovered that no formal F.I.R. 

was registered and hence how could the D.D.A. get their statements registered 

under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. An application was given for re-examination of the 

witnesses on 5th May 1988. Fifteen adjournments have been sought by the accused 

and so far no order is given on my application for re-examination. (Documents of 

case attached as Annexure D). 

OTHER OBSERVATIONS 

The members of social welfare organisations working in Lahore have never bothered 

to help bonded labour. The Tuberculosis Association claim they made a survey, but were 

told that no one at the bhattas suffered from TB. They were not allowed to enter the bhattas 

in some cases. Family Planning Association has so far not made bonded labour a target 

group. Similarly none of the other organisations has done any social work amongst these 

labourers. The church groups initiated work amongst the bhatta workers four years ago, but 

soon abandoned it. It is not easy to work amongst a class of people whose existence has not 

only hindered their physical well-being but also distorted their psyche. This total degradation 

of this section of society is bound to affect the entire social fabric of our society if allowed to 

continue. The open violation of the fundamental rights and the supreme law of the land will 

give way to ìnon-respectî of laws of the country. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Realising that the judiciary has its own particular role which cannot be expanded to 

making of laws, I would like to make the following recommendations:-- 

(1) The Supreme Court could lay down parameters to be observed by courts in habeas 

corpus petitions regarding bonded labour. 

(2) Bailiff of the court and not the police be instructed to recover the detenus. 

(3) Where the court is satisfied of illegal detention a direction be given to police for filing 

of a complaint against the offender. This would act as a deterrent. 

(4) The Bar Associations be instructed to draw up a panel of advocates who could give 

free legal aid to all depressed sections of society, particularly bonded labour. 

(5) Where criminal cases are instituted against bonded labourers for return of loan, they 

should be quashed and the complainant asked to seek civil remedy. 

(6) The Labour Department should be ordered to make periodical visits to the brick-kiln 

industry and other industries where bonded labour is known to be employed. The 

courts are guardians of the law and as such can give instructions to ensure effective 

implementation of the law. 

(7) A minimum wage be determined not per family but individually. 

REPORT BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHUNIAN 

--- 54 --- 

Asma Jahangir, Advocate 

Reference Verbal Orders of Honourable Court dated 13.8.1988. Respectfully 

sheweth:-- 

There are about 55 brick-kilns running in the Illaqa of Police Station Bhai Pheru, 

Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur. On each and every kiln labourers of following category work 

at 24 hours.

(1) Patharas: Who prepare bricks from the earth in the initial stage. (2) Ghumara: 

Who collect katcha bricks from the field and pour into kiln, (3) Dabal and Bhariwala: These 

people place the bricks in kiln in order and make ready for blowing fire; (4) Nakasi walas. 

These people extract pucca bricks from kiln and make ready for sale; (5) Jamadars: The 

Jamadars look after the labourers working under them; (6) Chowkidars: These persons have 

a watch around the kiln so that none should steal the bricks. (7) Munshi: These persons deal 

with the customers and maintain cash. 

Patharas. 

The labourers who prepare bricks are usually Christian or non-Muslim. About 30-60 persons 

at a time work on each kiln. For preparing one thousand katcha bricks the wages are about 

35/40 rupees. The persons who can prepare one thousand bricks daily can take Rs.10,000 

from the owner of kiln as advance. 

Ghumars. 

The Ghumars who procure bricks on donkeys from fields to the kiln, take Rs.22 per 

thousand bricks. The Ghumar who has 3 donkeys ready for work is called one Jog and can 

take Rs.6,000 as advance from the owner of kiln through Jamadars. 

Dabai and Safai Wala 

These people work on wages. They put the bricks in order into the kiln and make 

them ready for blowing fire. About 4 to 10 persons are usually arranged for this work. 

Besides pay they also take money as advance. 

Nakasi Wala. 

These people extract pacca bricks from the kiln when they are ready for use and take 

Rs.10 as wages per thousand bricks. 

Patharas. Ghumars. 

These peoples work under jamadar who also provides Patharas and Ghumars. The 

amount which is given in advance is regularly entered in a cash book. On every Thursday 

every labourer is paid according to his work. These accounts are regularly maintained in 

ledgers. 

These workers usually reside with family in the premises of kiln only for their own 

benefit and residential quarter, electricity etc are supplied to them free of cost. Besides 

above the owners of kiln finance them at the time of marriage or death. 

Patharas are usually non-Muslims or Christian. They are hard workers and are of 

simple type. Some of them are shrewd type and create unrest amongst the workers. 

About 2 years ago some people have formed a union. These people excite the 

workers against Bhatha Walas. They take Rs.10. per head from each labourer as 

contribution. The labour working at kiln obtain lacs of rupees as advance from the owners of 

kiln. The workers of union misguide them and they leave their place of working without 

paying the amount taken in advance. The union workers used to file a writ petition against 

kiln owners. 

A practice is going on amongst workers. The workers take advance through 

Jamadars and then slip away with the concurrence of union workers. When the kiln owner 

pursues them for the recovery of advanced amount they take amount from another bhata 

wala in order to clear their accounts. These Patharas have started this practice and they put 

the bhatta walas in difficulty. 

When Patharas get advance a contract is made in this respect. When they slip away 

after getting the amount the owners of kiln give them chase and both of them become 

--- 55 ---

disreputed. On 15-5-1988 Muhammad Irshad Bailiff of Lahore High Court under the orders of 

Mr. Justice Fazal Karim, Lahore High-Court, Lahore for the recovery of confinees, came to 

Police Station Bhai Pheru and after getting force from the P.S. proceeded in the illaqa. A 

report No.18 of 15-5-1988 in this respect was entered in the Daily Diary at 4-45 p.m. But in 

this report neither the name of any confinee nor the name of any kiln was mentioned. 

Afterwards it came to light that the bailiff had recovered 89 persons from the kiln of Rao 

Abdul Oayyum. It seems, My Lord, apparently it is impossible to illegally confine so many 

persons at a brick-kiln. 

My Lords on 25-6-1988 Rao Abdul Oayyum s/o Nazir Ahmed Khan, Rajput owner of 

Mahmood Brick Bhai Pheru lodged an F.I.R. No.318/88 under section 406/420, P.P.C. 

wherein he mentioned that the following persons working at his kiln had entered into a 

contract with him to prepare one thousand katcha bricks for Rs.32. Under this contract every 

worker obtained amount as advance given against each and started working. Besides 

amount of advance everybody used to have wages according to their work. After that these 

labourers left the work without informing the kiln owner. At that time Rs.4,00,000 were 

outstanding against them. On the report of Rao Abdul Qayyum case against the following 

persons was registered: 

(1) Boota Masih son of Shera Rs. 25,216.00 

(2) Arif son of Boota. 

(3) Ashraf s/o Boota. Rs. 3,373.00 

(4) Yaqub son of Jalal. 

(5) Aslam son of yaqub. Rs. 32,586.00 

(6) Allah Ditta s/o Dosa. 

(7) Akram son of Dosa. Rs. 19,470.00 

(8) Anwar s/o Mehga. Rs. 16,488.00 

(9) Jamal s/o Bakha. Rs. 7,790.00 

(10) Sardar son of Bero. Rs. 1,540.00 

(11) Haneef s/o Hakim. Rs. 8,619.00 

(12) Rehmat s/o Ismail. Rs. 28,059.00 

(13) Liaquat son of Rehmat. Rs. 20,838.00 

(14) Hakim s/o Ismail. Rs. 18,881.00 

(15) Rehmat s/o Yaro. Rs. 13,470.00 

(16) BJames s/o Rehmat. Rs. 31,770.00 

(17) Pitras s/o Rehmat. Rs. 3,631.00 

(18) Hadayat s/o Shaban Rs. 28,627.00 

(19) Inayat s/o Shaban Rs. 10,402.00 

(20) Paloos s/o Tajo Rs. 23,486.00 

(21) Sadiq s/o Tajo 

After the registration of case the investigation was conducted by Muhammad Younis 

ASI. During the investigation the relevant record of kiln was taken into possession. Afzal s/o 

Siraj Din, Akbar Ali son of Shahab Din, Zulfiqar Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain and 

Habib Ahmed son of Nizam Din, Zahoor son of Noor Din, Rana Sajawal s/o Sadar P.Ws. 

appeared before the Investigating Officer. Then statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. were 

duly recorded. There was ample proof against these accused persons, hence on 28-6-1988 

Rehmat (1) Pitras (2) James (3) Boota (4) Arif (5) Alah Ditta, (6) Inayat (7) Hadayat (8) 

Hakim Masih, (9) Sardar Masih (10) Javeid where as Sadiq accused was arrested on 23-6- 

1988. They were sent to judicial lock-up after thorough interrogation. An incomplete challan 

--- 56 ---

against them has been put in court on 12-7-1988. Afterwards Rehmat s/o Ismail and Liaquat 

accused were also arrested in this an. All of them (14 accused) are on bail. 

My Lord, rest of the accused (1) Yaqub Masih, (2) Akram Masih, (3) Adam, (4) Anwar, 

(5) Haneef, (6) Pitras, (7) Ashraf, are still absconding. They will soon be hauled up. 

Meanwhile a compromise is said to have been effected between the complainant and 

the accused party of their own accord without any pressure. The accused are now working at 

the kiln of Rana Mohammad Yasin Pahlwan. They are at liberty to work at the kiln and there 

is no compulsion for them. None has cofined them and they work of their own accord. 

Now the investigation of the case is being conducted by the Inspector Khan 

Muhammad S.H.O. Police Station Bhai Pheru. After discussing the matter with D.S.P. Legal 

the case will be finalised immediately. 

REPORT II BY THE DSP, PATTOKI 

--- 57 --- 

Submitted Please. 

Muhammad Ashraf, 

D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Pattoki. 

̶ϟΎϋ ΏΎϨΟ 

؟ՍϬΑ ؐϴϣ Ω΍ΪόΗ ήϴΜ̯ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧή̯ έΎϴΗ ՋϨϳ΍ ؟ΘΨ̡ فϴϟ ف̯ Ε΍ήϴϤόΗ ϡΎϋ ؐϴϣ ̮Ϡϣ ـέΎϤ٫ ؟̯ ف٫ αΎϤΘϟ΍ ؟ϧΎΑΩΆϣ 

ϡΎ̯ ΎϨ̡΍ فϧ ٪έ΍Ω΍ ̵έΎΑϭέΎ̯ ή٫ -ف٫ 

̶ΗΎΟ ̶΋Ύ̡̰ ؐϴϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ή̯ Ϯ٫ έΎϴΗ έΎϬΘ̡ ؟όϳέάΑ ՋϨϳ΍ ϡΎΧ ή̡ ؏Ύ٬Ο ؐϴ٫ ΩϮΟϮϣ ΖθΧ ف΋Ύϫ 

Ϫ̪̯ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧϼ̩ ϡΎ̯ ϦϴΑΎϣ ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ήΒϴϟ έϭ΍ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ Ρήσ ̶γ΍ -ؐϴ٫ 

ف΋Ϯ٫ فϴ̯ ϊοϭ ϝϮλ΍ فϨ̡΍ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧϼ̩ 

ήΒϴϟ ؟Ϥ̰Τϣ ؟̰ϠΑ ؐϴ٫ ٪Ϊη έϮψϨϣ ف̯ ήΒϴϟ ؟Ϥ̰Τϣ ̶٫ ؟ϧ ؐϴ٫ ؐϴ٬ϧ ؐϴϣ Ϟ̰η ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ؟ϳ ή̴ϣ -ؐϴ٫ 

ϊοϭ έΎ̯ ؟Ϙϳήσ έϭ΍ ϝϮλ΍ 

-ؐϴ٫ 

ؐϴ٬ϧ Ϯ̳ϻ ή̡ ف΋Ύϫ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥ΍ Ϧϴϧ΍Ϯϗ ف̯ 

έϭ΍ έ΍Ϊϴ̯Ϯ̩ ˬϻ΍ϭ ̶΋Ύϔλ ˬϻ΍ϭ ̶γΎ̰ϧ ˬ؟ϟ΍ϭ ̶΋ϼΟ ˬέΎ٬Ϥ̯ -ήϴϬΘ̡ 

ή̡ ف΋Ύϫ ؟ՍϬΑ 

فϴϟ ف̯ فϧϼ̩ ϡΎ̯ Ύ̯ ΖθΧ ؟ՍϬΑ 

έΎ٬Ϥ̯ έϭ΍ ήϴϬΘ̡ -ف٫ 

ΎΗϮ٫ ϡΎ̯ ϒϠΘΨϣ έϭ΍ ٪ΪΤϴϠϋ فγ ή̯έϭ ـήγϭΩ ̮ϳ΍ Ύ̯ ή̯έϭ ή٫ -ف٫ 

̶ΗϮ٫ ήΒϴϟ ϞϤΘθϣ ή̡ ٪ήϴϏϭ έ΍ΪόϤΟ 

فϨϳΩ έϭ΍ فϨϴϟ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ -ف٫ 

ΎΗή̯ ωϭήη ϡΎ̯ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϞλΎΣ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ̶Ϥ٫ΎΑ 

-ف٫ 

̵έϮΒΠϣ ̶̯ ήΒϴϟ ΪϨϣ Εέϭήο Ύϧή̯ ϞλΎΣ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ϮΟ ف٫ ̵έΎΟ فγ ί΍έΩ ؟λήϋ ή̡ ΖθΧ ف΋Ύϫ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟ϠδϠγ Ύ̯ 

ف΋Ϯ٫ فϨΑ ή̡ ΖθΧ ؟ՍϬΑ ف̯ ؏Ϯ̪Α ϝΎΑ ؟όϤΑ ϮΟ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΘϬ̯έ ϖϠόΗ فγ ̵έΩ΍ήΑ ϢϠϤγϮϧ έϭ΍ ̶΋Ύδϴϋ ήΜ̯΍ ήϴϬΘ̡ 

ϡΎΧ έ΍ΰ٫ ̮ϳ΍ ؐϴϣ ؟ϗϼϋ α΍ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΗή̯ έΎϴΗ ՋϨϳ΍ ϡΎϋ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ ΖϋΎτΘγ΍ ̶Ϩ̡΍ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ ήϳά̡ 

ζ΋Ύ٫έ ؐϴϣ ؏ϮϬՌϮ̯ ف̪̯ 

؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ٪ϭ Ύ̳ ـή̯ έΎϴΗ ϡΎΧ ՋϨϳ΍ έ΍ΰ٫ ̮ϳ΍ ؐϴϣ ؏ϭήϴϬΘ̡ ϮΟ -ف٫ 

ΎΗή̯ ϞλΎΣ ήϴϬΘ̡ ف̡ϭέ 40 ΎΗ 35 Ύ̯ فϧή̯ έΎϴΗ ՋϨϳ΍ 

ف٫ ΎΘϴϟ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ فγ Ջϳέ ̶γ΍ ϮΗ Ύ̳ ـή̯ έΎϴΗ ٪ΩΎϳί 

فγ α΍ ή̳΍ -ف٫ 

ΎΗή̯ ϞλΎΣ Ϣϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ̮Η ؟ϴ̡ϭέ έ΍ΰ٫ αΩ فγ 

-ف٫ 

ΎΗϮ٫ ٪Ϊ٫Ύόϣ ϖϠόΘϣ ف̯ ϦϳΩ Ϧϴϟ Ϣϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ έϭ΍ 

ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ έΪϧ΍ ή̯ ΎϬՌ΍ فγ ή٫ΎΑ ՋϨϳ΍ ϡΎΧ ή̡ ؏ϮϫΪϨ̯ فϨ̡΍ ف٫ ή̯έϭ Ϣ٫΍ Ύ̯ ΖθΧ ؟ՍϬΑ ΪόΑ ف̯ ήϴϬΘ̡ ؟̯ ϮΟ έΎ٬Ϥ̯ 

؏Ϯϫ فϫΪ̳ ϦϴΗ αΎ̡ ف̯ έΎ٬Ϥ̯ βΟ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗΎ̴ϟ ή٫ΎΑ ή̯ ϝΎ̰ϧ فγ ؐϴϣ ؟ՍϬΑ ՋϨϳ΍ ؟ΘΨ̡ ήϬ̡ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗή̯ ϡΎ̯ Ύ̯ فϧΎ̪Ϩ٬̡ 

-ف٫ 

ΎΗή̯ ϞλΎΣ ̶̴θϴ̡ Ϣϗέ ̮Η ف̡ϭέ έ΍ΰ٫ Ϫ̩ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ̭Ϯ̩ ̶ϓ έΎ٬Ϥ̯ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΘ٬̯ ̭Ϯ̩ ̮ϳ΍ فγ΍ 

ϡΎ̯ Ϯ̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ήΒϴϟ ϡΎϤΗ ίϭέ ف̯ Ε΍ήόϤΟ ή٫ ή̯ ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ ΏΎδΣ Ύ̯ ϡΎ̯ ϻ΍ϭ ؟ϧ΍ίϭέ Ύ̯ ϥ΍ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϡΎ̯ ̮Η ؟Θϔ٫ 

̶ΗϮՍ̯ ̶̯ Ϣϗέ Ϫ̪̯ فγ ΖϨΤϣ ̵έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ ̶Ϩ̡΍ ٪ϭ ف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ ̶ϟ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ فϧ ήΒϴϟ βΟ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ ̶̯ ΍Ω΍ ΕήΟ΍ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ 

ՊΎ̯ ̶ϬΑ ̶ΘγΩήΑί ΩϮΧ Ϣϗέ Ϫ̪̯ فγ ؐϴϣ ΕήΟ΍ έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ϮΗ ف΋΍ϭή̯ ؟ϧ ̶ΗϮՍ̯ ΩϮΧ فγ ؟Οϭ ̶δ̯ ή̳΍ -ف٫ 

ΎΗ΍ϭή̯ 

؟ՍϬΑ έϭΩΰϣ Ϧ̰ϴϟ ف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ζΠϧέ ϦϴΑΎϣ ف̯ ̮ϟΎϣ έϭ΍ ήΒϴϟ 

ή̡ ΕΎΑ α΍ ϮΗ ـή̯ ̶ΗϮՍ̯ ΩϮΧ ί΍ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ή̳΍ -ف٫ 

ΎΘϴϟ 

ϊϗϮϣ ف̯ فϧΎΟ Ϯ٫ ̱ήϣ ˬ̵ΩΎη فγ ̮ϟΎϣ ήΒϴϟ ؐϳί΍ ٪ϭϼϋ -ف٫ 

ΎΘϬ̯έ ̵έΎΟ ϡΎ̯ ΎϨ̡΍ فγ ̶ηϮϣΎΧ فϴϟ α΍ ف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ έϮΒΠϣ 

̮ϟΎϣ ؟θϴϤ٫ 

؟ՍϬΑ ήΒϴϟ Ρήσ α΍ -ف٫ 

̶ΗΎΟ Ϯ٫ ϊϤΟ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ Ϣϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ϮΟ ف٫ ΎΗή̯ ϞλΎΣ Ϣϗέ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ Εέϭήο Ϊϳΰϣ ή̡ 

ف̯ ̶ΘΨγ ـΪϧέΎ̯ ف̯ α΍ Ύϳ ̮ϟΎϣ ϮΗ ؐϳΩ ή̯ ωϭήη ̶ϧή̯ ؏ΎϴՍϬ̩ فγ ϡΎ̯ ٪ήϴϏϭ ήϴϬΘ̡ ή̳΍ -ف٫ 

ΎΘ٫έ ΖϨϣ ϥϮ٫ήϣ Ύ̯ ؟ՍϬΑ 

-ؐϴ٫ 

فΗή̯ ωϭήη ΎϨϴϟ ϡΎ̯ ϪΗΎγ

̶̯ ϡΎ̯ ف̯ ϥ΍ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗή̯ Ύϴ٬ϣ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ έΎ٬Ϥ̯ Ύϳ ήϴϬΘ̡ ϮΟ ف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ έ΍ΪόϤΟ ̮ϳ΍ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ Ν΍ϭέ ϡΎϋ 

βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ Ϯ̯ ήΒϴϟ α΍ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ ΐΟϮϣ Ύ̯ ؟τΑ΍έ ϦϴΑΎϣ ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ έϭ΍ έϭΩΰϣ ̶٫ϭ -ف٫ 

ΎΗή̯ 

̶ϬΑ ̶ϧ΍ή̴ϧ 

ΐΟ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΗϮ٫ ف̯ Ϣδϗ έΎϴηϮ٫ έ΍ΪόϤΟ Ϫ̪̯ -ف٫ 

ΎΗ΍ϭή̯ ՊϮϧ Ϯ̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ̶θϨϣ ٪ϭ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ήϬΑ ϥΩ ϡΎ̯ ΎϨΘΟ ف٫ ΎΗϻΩ ̶ϬΑ Ϣϗέ 

ΐΟ ٪ήϴϏϭ ̶ΨϠΗ ϦϴΑΎϣ ف̯ ؏ϮϧϭΩ ή̡ فϧή̯ ٪ΩΎϳί ؏ΎϴՍϬ̩ ف̯ ήΒϴϟ Ύϳ ή̡ ϊϗϮϣ ف̯ ̶ΗϮՍ̯ Ϣϗέ ϥΎϴϣέΩ ف̯ ήϴϬΘ̡ έϭ΍ ̮ϟΎϣ 

ف΋Ύ٫ ؟ՍϬΑ ف̯ ؟ϗϼϋ ί΍έΩ έϭΩ ̶δ̯ ف̯ ή̯ ίΎΑ ίΎγ فγ ήϴϬΘ̡ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ ؐϴϣ εϼΗ ̶̯ ϊϗϮϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έ΍ΪόϤΟ Ύδϳ΍ ϮΗ ف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ 

-ف٫ 

ΎΘϳΩ ή̯ فϟ΍ϮΣ ف̯ ϥ΍ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ ̶ηϮϣΎΧ Ϯ̯ ήϴϬΘ̡ ή̯ ϻΩ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ف̯ ή̯ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ؟τΑ΍έ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ έ΍ΪόϤΟ Ύϳ ؏Ϯ̰ϟΎϣ ف̯ 

Ύ̯ ̶̳ΩϮΟϮϣ ̶̯ α΍ ή̳΍ -ف٫ 

ΎΗή̯ εϼΗ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ فγ΍ ϮΗ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ ϼ̩ ωϼσ΍ ήϴϐΑ ή̯ فϟ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ Ϣϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ήϴϬΘ̡ ΐΟ 

̶̯ α΍ ϮΗ ف΋΁ ؟ϧ β̡΍ϭ ή̳΍ -ف΋ΎΟ 

΁ β̡΍ϭ ήϴϬΘ̡ ؟̯ ف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ ζ٫΍ϮΧ فγ ؟όϳέΫ ΰ΋ΎΟΎϧ ΰ΋ΎΟ ή٫ ̶̯ ̮ϟΎϣ ϮΗ ف΋ΎΟ Ϟ̩ ؟Θ̡ 

ΎΟ فΑ ϑϼΧ ف̯ ήϴϬΘ̡ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ ήΛ΍ΎΑ ήΜ̯΍ ϮΟ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ϮΗ Ϯ٫ ؟ϧ ϞΣ ؟ϠΌδϣ ؟ϳ Ρήσ α΍ ή̳΍ -ف΋ΎΟ 

Ϯ٫ β̡΍ϭ Ϣϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ 

̨ϟϻ Ύϳ ؟όϳέΫ ف̯ εέΎϔγ έϭ΍ ΥϮγέ ϭ ήΛ΍ ̶Η΍Ϋ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟ՍϬΑ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΘϳΩ ή̯ ωϭήη ̵ίΎΑ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ή̯ Ύ̴ϟ ϡ΍ΰϟ΍ ف̯ Ϣδϗ 

ΝέΩ ؟ϣΪϘϣ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΘϳΩ ΍ή̯ ΙϮϠϣ ؐϴϣ ΕΎϣΪϘϣ فՌϮϬΟ ف̯ վ΍ήϓ 

̵έϮ̩ فϴϟ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϥΎθϳή̡ Ϯ̯ ήΒϳ ؟όϳέΫ ف̯ βϴϟϮ̡ ή̯ ـΩ 

̶̯ Ϣϗέ έϭ΍ ف٫ ̶Η΁ فϟ ή̯ ̡֑̰ Ϯ̯ ήϴϬΘ̡ έϭ΍ فϴϟ ف̯ ̶̳Ϊϣ΁ήΑ ̶̯ Ϣϗέ έϭ΍ ف٫ ̶Η΁ ؐϴϣ Ζ̯ήΣ βϴϟϮ̡ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϧϮ٫ ήՍδΟέ 

̮ϟΎϣ ٪ϭ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ ̨Ϩ٬̡ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ βΟ ήϴϬΗ ؐϴϣ ΕέϮλ ̵ήγϭΩ -ف٫ 

̶ΘϳΩ ή̯ ωϭήη ̶ΗΩΎϳί ϪΗΎγ ف̯ ήΒϴϟ فϴϟ ف̯ ̶̳Ϊϣ΁ήΑ 

ήϴϬΘ̡ ̶Ό̯ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΘϴϟ ή̯ ϞΣ ؟ϠΌδϣ Ύ̯ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ή̡ έϮσ ̶Θϴ΋Ύ̪Ϩ̡ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ؟τΑ΍έ ؐϴϣ β̡΁ ؟ϣΪϘϣ ̶ϋΪϣ έϭ΍ ؟ՍϬΑ 

ΪόΑ ف̯ فϨϴϟ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ήϴϬΘ̡ فδϳ΍ -ف٫ 

΍Ϯ٫ ΎϳΎϨΑ έΎΑϭέΎ̯ Ύ̯ فϨϴϟ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ فϧ ؏Ϯ٬ϨΟ ؐϴ٫ فΗϮ٫ ف̯ Ϣδϗ έΎϴηϮ٫ Ζ٬Α 

ϥ΍ Ϣϗέ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΘϴϟ ή̯ ϞλΎΣ ̵Ω΍ί΁ ؟όϳέΫ ف̯ ϒϴΑ Ύϳ فΗΎΟ فϠ̩ فγ ϊϗϮϣ Ϯ̯ Ε΍έ فγ ̶ηϮϣΎΧ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΗή̯ ϡΎ̯ ϥΩ ΪϨ̩ 

؟ΧέϮϣ ؐϴϣ ̶٫ ϝΎΣ ؟̯ ΎδϴΟ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ Ϯ٫ ωϭήη ζ̰Ϥθ̯ ϦϴΑΎϣ ف̯ ήΒϴϟ έϭ΍ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ή̡ βΟ -ف٫ 

̶ΗΎΟ ٪έ ̶ϗΎΑ ؟ϣΫ ف̯ 

ف̯ ϦϴϧϮϳ ̶Ϩ̡΍ فϧ ؏ϭήϴϬΘ̡ ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ف̯ ϭήϴϬ̡ ̶΋ΎϬΑ 

؟Ϩ̰γ ΕϮ̢Ο΍έ ϡϮϗ ϥΎΧ ΪϤΣ΍ ήϳάϧ Ϊϟϭ ϡϮϴϘϟ΍ΪΒϋ ΅΍έ Ϯ̯ ˯15-5-1988 

̶̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ؟ϣΫ ف̯ ϦΟ ف΋Ϯ٫ Ω΍ί΁ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϞλΎΣ ̶΋Ύ٫έ ̶̯ αϮϔϧ 89 ؟όϳέΫ ف̯ ϒϠϴΑ فγ Ϣ̰Σ ف̯ ؟ϴϟΎϋ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ؟όϳέΫ 

فϨ̡΍ ή̯ ΍ϭή̯ ήϳήΤΗ ϥΎϴΑ ΎϨ̡΍ αΎ̡ ف̯ βϧϮϳ ΪϤΤϣ ̶΋΁ βϳ΍ ـ΍ فϧ έϮ̯άϣ ϡϮϴϘϟ΍ΪΒϋ ΅΍έ ϮΗ ̶ϬΗ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ف̡ϭέ Ϫ̯ϻ έΎ̩ 

ف̯ ή̯ ζϴΘϔΗ ϞϣΎη Ϯ̯ ήϴϬΘ̡ ̟ Ε 420/406 ϡήΠϣ Ή23-6-1988 

؟ΧέϮϣ 319 ήΒϤϧ ؟ϣΪϘϣ ϑϼΧ ف̯ ؏ϭήϴϬΘ̡ 21 

βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ έϭ΍ ̶Ό̳ Ϯ٫ ΢Ϡλ فγ ̵ΪϨϣΎοέ ̶Ϥ٫ΎΑ έϭ΍ ̶΋Ϯ٫ Ζϴ̩ ΕΎΑ ή̡ έϮσ ̶Θϴ΋Ύ̪Ϩ̡ ؐϴϣ ϦϴϘϳήϓ ؏ϮϧϭΩ ή̡ βΟ Ύϴ̳ Ύϴ̯ έΎΘϓή̳ 

Ϯ٫ β̡΍ϭ ؟ϣΪϘϣ ή̡ βΟ ̶̯ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ̶̯ فϨϴϟ β̡΍ϭ ؟ϣΪϘϣ ΎϨ̡΍ فγ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ فϧ έϮ̯άϣ ϡϮϴϘϟ΍ΪΒϋ ΅΍έ ή̡ فϧϮ٫ ϞΣ ؟ϠΌδϣ Ύ̯ Ϣϗέ 

-ؐϴ٫ 

ف̰̩ Ϯ٫ ̵ήΑ فγ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ήϴϬΘ̡ ؟ϠϤΟ ή̯ 

فγ ؟ϳϭέ ήϴ̳ ΖΨγ ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ήϴϬΘ̡ Ύϳ ΪόΑ ف̯ فϧή̯ ϝϮλϭ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ήϴϬΘ̡ فδϳ΍ ؟̯ ف٫ ΎΗϮ٫ ̶ϬΑ Ύδϳ΍ 

Ϯ٫ ωϭήη ̶ϧ΍ή̴ϧ ̶̯ ϥ΍ ή̡ فϧΎΟ Ϯ٫ ήΒΧ Ϯ̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ϮΗ 

ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ζηϮ̯ ̶̯ فϨ̳ΎϬΑ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ή̡ έϮσ ؟ϴϔΧ ή̯ ΁ ̲ϨΗ 

؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ؟̰ϠΑ ΎΗΎΟ ΎϳΩ فϧΎΟ ؐϴ٬ϧ فγ ؟ՍϬΑ ΎΗή̯ ؐϴ٬ϧ β̡΍ϭ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ̮Η ΐΟ ؟̯ ف٫ ΎΗΎΟ ΎϳΩ ή̯ ΪϨΑΎ̡ فγ΍ 

-ف٫ 

̶ΗΎΟ 

̶ΗϮՍ̯ ̶̯ Ϣϗέ ٪ΩΎϳί έϭ΍ ̶ΘγΩήΑί فγ ؐϴϣ ΕήΟ΍ έ΍ϭ ؟Θϔ٫ έϭ΍ ف٫ ΎΘϳΩ ή̯ ωϭήη ΎϨϴϟ ϡΎ̯ ٪ΩΎϳί ΖΒδϧ ̶̯ فϠ٬̡ فγ ήϴϬΘ̡ α΍ 

ήΒϴϟ ή̴ϳΩ Ύϳ ήϴϬΘ̡ ـΪϧέΎ̯ ف̯ α΍ Ύϳ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ΐΟ -ؐϴ٫ 

فΗή̯ ΩΪθΗ ή̯ Ϫ̯έ ؐϴϣ ΎΟ فΑ βΒΣ فγ΍ έϭ΍ ؐϴ٫ فΘϳΩ ή̯ ωϭήη 

ϮΗ ف٫ ̶ΗϮ٫ ̶ΗΩΎϳί ̶΋Ϯ̯ فγ α΍ ή̴ϳΩ Ύϳ ؐϴ٫ فΗ΍ϭή̯ ϡΎ̯ ή̯ ̭ϭέ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ ̶ΘγΩήΑί Ύϳ ؐϴ٫ فΘϴϟ ϡΎ̯ فγ ̶ΘΨγ ϪΗΎγ ف̯ 

̶΋ϻ ؐϴϣ ϞϤϋ ̶΋΍ϭέέΎ̯ ̶ϧϮϧΎϗ ؟τΑΎο ΐδΣ ϑϼΧ ف̯ ؏ϭΪϧέΎ̯ ف̯ α΍ Ύϳ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ή̡ فϨϠϣ Ϯ̯ βϴϟϮ̡ 

̶ϣΎϘϣ ωϼσ΍ ̶δϳ΍ 

؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ̶Ϡϋ Ζ̯Ϯη ή̡ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ̶̯ ϭήϴϬ٬̡ ̶΋ΎϬΑ ؟ϧΎϬΗ ϪΗΎϧ ΎϨϳΩ ΢ϴδϣ ϻΎϬΑ Ϊϟϭ ΢ϴδϣ ΍έΎ̰Ϩη ήϴϬΘ̡ ؟̯ ΎδϴΟ ف٫ ̶ΗΎΟ 

ζϴΘϔΗ ή̯ Ϯ٫ ήՍδΟέ ΝέΩ ϭήϴϬ̡ ̶΋ΎϬΑ ؟ϧΎϬΗ ̟ Ε 365 ϡήΟ Ή19-11-1987 

؟ΧέϮϣ 351 ήΒϤϧ ؟ϣΪϘϣ ϑϼΧ ف̯ ٪ήϴϏϭ 

ϑϼΧ ف̯ ϥΎϣΰϠϣ ؟ϠϤΟ ή̯ ΎΟ ̶΋Ύ̡ ̟ Ε 344 ϡήΟ ΕέϮλ فγ ٪Ϊϣ΁ ζϴ̡ ΕΎόϗ΍ϭ ΕϻΎΣ ζϴΘϔΗ ϥ΍έϭΩ -̶Ό̳ 

̶΋ϻ ؐϴϣ ϞϤϋ 

-Ύϴ̳ 

ΎϳΩ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ϥϻΎ̩ 

؟ϣΪϘϣ 

ή̡ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ̶̯ ٪֐Ύ̯ϭ΍ ϊϠο ΩέϮΧ ϻΎϨϳέ 30 ̮̩ ؟Ϩ̰γ ΪϤΣ΍ ήϴθΑ ήΘΧΩ ̶Α ̶Α ؏Ύϔϳήη ΓΎϤδϣ Ρήσ ̶γ΍ 

ήՍδΟέ ΝέΩ ف̯ ٪ήϴϏϭ ϕΩΎλ 2 ήΒϤϧ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ ϑϼΧήΑ ϭήϴϬ̡ ̶΋ΎϬΑ ؟ϧΎϬΗ A/354 ϡήΟ Ή23-1-1988 

؟ΧέϮϣ 47 ήΒϤϧ 

Ϯ̯ ϥΎϣΰϠϣ β̯ Ϫ̩ ή̯ ΎΟ ̶΋Ύ̡ ̟ Ε 147/342/506 ϡήΟ ΕέϮλ ϑϼΧ ف̯ ϥΎϣΰϠϣ ζϴΘϔΗ ϥ΍έϭΩ ˬ̶΋Ϯ٫ ζϴΘϔΗ ή̯ Ϯ٫ 

-Ύϴ̳ 

ΎϳΩ Ζϟ΍Ϊϋ ΖϋΎϤγ ف΋΍ήΑ ϥϻΎ̩ ή̯ ΍ϮΠϬΑ ϞθϳվϮΟ Εϻ΍ϮΣ ف̯ ή̯ έΎΘϓή̳ 

βϴϟϮ̡ ̶ϣΎϘϣ ΖϳΎ̰η Ύϳ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ϑϼΧ ف̯ ٪ήϴϏϭ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ فγ ϑήσ ̶̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ήΒϴϟ ̶δ̯ ή̳΍ ؐϳί΍ ٪ϭϼϋ 

Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ΖϓΎϳέΩ ϥ΍έϭΩ ήΜ̯΍ Ϧ̰ϴϟ -ف٫ 

̶ΗΎΟ ̶̯ ̶΋΍ϭέέΎ̯ ̵έϮϓ فϴϟ ف̯ ̶γέ ϖΣ ̶̯ ٪ΪϨϫΩ Ζγ΍ϮΧέΩ ϮΗ ف٫ ̶Θ̪Ϩ٬̡ ̮Η 

Ύ̯ ΖϳΎ̰η ٪Ϊη ΍Ϊϴ̡ فγ ̵ΪϨϣΎοέ ̶Ϥ٫ΎΑ έϭ΍ ή̡ έϮσ ̶Θϴ΋Ύ̪Ϩ̡ ؐϴϣ ϦϴϘϳήϓ ؏ϮϧϭΩ فγ ؟Οϭ ̶̯ فϧϮ٫ Ζϴ̩ ΕΎΑ فϨϣΎγ فϨϣ΁ 

-ف٫ 

̶ΗΎΟ Ϯ٫ ΢Ϡλ ή̯ Ϯ٫ ؟ϟ΍ί΍ 

--- 58 ---

έΎΑϭέΎ̯ ف̯ ή̯ ϞλΎΣ Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ Ύ̯ ήϴϬΘ̡ ̭ϻΎ̩ έϭ΍ έΎϴηϮ٫ ΪϨ̩ ϦϴΑΎϣ ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ έϭ΍ ήϴϬΘ̡ ϡΎϘϣ ̶ϟΎϋ 

̮ϟΎϣ ؟̰ϧϮϴ̯ -ف٫ 

̶Ό̳ Ϯ٫ ωϭήη ̶θ̯ ؟γέ ή̡ فϨϬ̯έ ؟ϳϭέ ήϴ̳ ΖΤγ ف̯ ٪ήϴϏϭ ؏ϭΪϧέΎ̯ ف̯ α΍ έϭ΍ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ έϭ΍ فϧΎϨΑ 

̶٫ فγ ̶ϣήϧ Ύϳ ̶ΘΨγ فγ ήΒϴϟ ٪ϭ ٪΍ϮΧ ـή̯ ϡΎ̯ ٪ΩΎϳί فγ ٪ΩΎϳί ήΒϴϟ ؟̯ ζηϮ̯ ̶٬ϳ -ف٫ 

̶ΗϮ٫ ̨ϟϻ ̶̯ فϧ΍ή̯ ϡΎ̯ Ϯ̯ ؟ՍϬΑ 

٪ΩΎϳί ήϴϬΘ̡ فγ ؟Ϙϳήσ ή٫ ؟ՍϬΑ ̮ϟΎϣ فϴϟ α΍ -ف٫ 

̶ΗϮ٫ έΎϴΗ ٪ΩΎϳί ՋϨϳ΍ ̶ϨΗ΍ ̶̳ Ϯ٫ ήϴϬΘ̡ ٪ΩΎϳί ̶ϨΘΟ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ -ف΋΍ή̯ 

؟ϧ ؏Ϯϴ̯ 

ϦϴϘϳήϓ ؏ϮϧϭΩ فγ ؟Οϭ ̶̯ ؏ϮϴΗΩΎϳί ̶̯ ̮ϟΎϣ έϭ΍ ؏ϭήϴϬΘ̡ ف̯ Ϣδϗ έΎϴηϮ٫ ΪϨ̩ ή̴ϣ -ف٫ 

ΎΘ٫Ύ̩ ΎϨϬ̯έ ή̡ ؟ՍϬΑ فϨ̡΍ ٪ΩΎϳί فγ 

؟ՍϬΑ ήΒϴϟ ̶ΘϨΤϣ فγ βΟ ؐϴ٫ فΗή̯ ̶ϬΑ ؏Ύϴη΍ήΗ ϡ΍ΰϟ΍ ή̡ ϖϳήϓ ـήγϭΩ ̮ϳ΍ έϭ΍ ف٫ Ύ̰̩ Ϯ٫ ωϭήη ؟ϠδϠγ ϻ΍ϭ ζ̰Ϥθ̯ ؐϴϣ 

̶Ηή̯ ϡΎ̯ ήΒϴϟ Ϣ̯ Ζ٬Α ή̡ ϦΟ ؐϴ٫ ̶ϟ ΍Ϯ̴Ϩϣ ̶ϬΑ ؐϴϨϴθϣ ̶ϟ΍ϭ فϧή̯ έΎϴΗ ϡΎΧ ՋϨϳ΍ فϧ ΖθΧ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ 

Ϫ̪̯ -ف٫ 

̶ΗϮ٫ ϥΎθϳή̡ 

-ؐϴ٫ 

فΗϮ٫ έΎ̩ϭΩ فγ ϢϠΑ΍ή̡ ̶̯ Ϣδϗ α΍ ϮΟ ف٫ 

-ف٫ 

̶΋Ϯ٫ ̶ϨΑ ήγ ΩέΩ فϴϟ ف̯ βϴϟϮ̡ ζ̰Ϥθ̯ ̶̯ ήΒϴϟ έϭ΍ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ ؟̯ ؏Ϯ٫ Ύ̪Ϩ٬̡ ή̡ ؟ΠϴΘϧ α΍ ؐϴϣ Ώ΂ϣ Εΰϋ 

Ϣϗέ βϧ΍ϭտϳ΍ ̶Ϩόϳ Ϣϗέ ̶̴θϴ̡ ϮΗ Ύϳ ϖΑΎτϣ ف̯ βΟ ف΋ΎΟ Ύϴ̯ άϓΎϧ ϥϮϧΎϗ Ύϳ έΎ̯ ؟Ϙϳήσ Ύδϳ΍ ̶΋Ϯ̯ ϖΑΎτϣ 

ف̯ ف΋΍έ κϗΎϧ ̵ήϴϣ 

̶Ϥ٫ΎΑ ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ήΒϴϟ έϭ΍ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ Ύϳ ف̰γ Ϯ٫ ؟ϧ ΍Ϊϴ̡ ΕέϮλ ̶δϳ΍ ϦϴΑΎϣ 

ف̯ ؟ՍϬΑ ϥΎ̰ϟΎϣ έϭ΍ ήΒϴϟ ؟̯ΎΗ ف΋ΎΟ ̵Ω ή̯ ϢΘΧ 

-فϴ٫Ύ̩ 

̶ϧϮ٫ ϢΘΧ ΖϠΧ΍Ϊϣ ̶̯ βϴϟϮ̡ έϭ΍ 

ؐϴ΋ΎΟ فΗϮ٫ ؟ϣΫ ف̯ ՋϨϤՌέΎ̢ϳվ ήΒϴϟ فϠΌδϣ ف̯ ΕΎϋίΎϨΗ 

(Sd.) 

DSP/Pattoki 

16-6-1988 

M.B.A./D-63/S 

Order accordingly. 

Editorís note: In this report, the DSP makes the following points. 

The brick-kiln owners and their employees have evolved certain principles and terms of work. 

These principles are not in a legal form, nor have they been approved by the labour 

department. Indeed the labour departmentís regulations are not applicable to brick-kilns. 

Each category of workers has a function different from other workersí. Under a mutual 

agreement, Pathairas and Kumhars take advances before starting work. This system has 

been in place since long as labour is impelled to take advance. The amount of advance 

depends on the number of bricks a bricklayer produces. All workers are paid each weekís 

wages on Thursdays and a part of advance is deducted. Besides a worker obtains money 

from the bhatta owner for marriage or death in the family. This money is added to the 

advance. There is a jamadar at each brick-kiln who functions as a middle man. Brick-kiln 

owners deal with runaway workers by harassing them through the police. When workers are 

recovered from far away places matters are resolved in a panchayat, as happened in this 

case. 89 workers won freedom under court orders and 21 Pathairas were arrested by the 

police. The matter was then resolved in a panchayat. Sometimes cases are registered by the 

police against employers and sent to court. The police takes prompt action on any complaint 

by a worker against a brick-kiln owner. But in most cases the parties sit together and reach a 

compromise. Some workers have made advance taking a business and they are in conflict 

with the brick-kiln owners. The harsh tactics of the latter also fuel tensions. I have come to 

the conclusion that the owner-labour confrontation has become a headache for the police. A 

law or system may be introduced under which either the peshgi system may be abolished or 

the Labour Department is assigned the task of dealing with disputes between owners and 

labour and intervention by the police is ended. The court noted this report read like brick-kiln 

ownersí defence 

--- 59 ---

--- 60 ---

II 

Sindh High Court opts for Tenancy Act 

� When Sec 491 CrPC is invoked in cases of private detention the High Courts should 

hear the respondents before issuing rule nisi. 

� Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 needs to be improved. 

� Matters related to loans should be dealt with under the Tenancy Act till such time as 

loans beyond a limit can be prohibited. 

� Record of tenants/tenancies should be properly maintained. 

� Disputes in hari-landlord relations ought to be sorted out at proper judicial forums. 

� The tenancy law may be amended to regulate tenant-landlord relations. 

� Labourers complaining of illegal detention should resort to alternative remedies 

instead of invoking Sec 491 CrPC 

--- 61 ---

--- 62 ---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH 

(CIRCUIT BENCH HYDERABAD) 

C. P. D. No. 35 OF 2000 

Dr. Mir Amanullah Talpur Petitioner 

Versus 

1. Government of Pakistan, through Ministry of Interior, Pakistan Secretariat at 

Islamabad. 

2. Government of Pakistan, through Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, 

Secretariat at Islamabad. 

3. Government of Sindh, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Sindh, Sindh Secretariat, 

Karachi. 

4. Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi. 

5. Inspector General of Police, Sindh, C.P.O. Karachi. 

6. Deputy Inspector General Police, Mirpurkhas Division, Mirpurkhas. 

7. Commissioner, Mirpurkhas Division, Mirpurkhas. 

8. District Magistrate Umerkot at Umerkot. 

9. District Magistrate Sanghar at Sanghar. 

10. District Magistrate Mirpurkhas, at Mirpurkhas. 

11. S.S.P. Mirpurkhas at Mirpurkhas. 

12. S.S.P. Umerkot at Umerkot. 

13. S.S.P. Sanghar at Sanghar. 

14. H.R.C.P. Sindh Task force, through Akhtar Baloch, Rabia Square, Haider Chowk, 

Gadi Khata, Hyderabad. 

PRESENT: 

Mr. Justice Zahid Qurban Alavi 

Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 

JUDGMENT SHEET 

Applicants: through Mr. Rasool Bux Palejo, Mr. Nandan A. Kella, Mr. Amanullah 

Soomro, Mr. Abdul Rehman Shaikh, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khan 

Gopang, Mr. Taj Mohammad Qaimkhani, Mr. Ghulamullah Chang, 

Advocates. 

Respondents: through Mr. Mohammad Yousif Leghari, Syed Javed I. Bukhari, Mr. 

Aftab Ahmed Warriach, Mr. Zahoor A. Balouch, Mr. Akhtar Hussain, 

Advocates. 

State: through Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio 

Amicus Curiae: Mr. Jhamat Jethanand and Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro. 

On Special Invitation Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqi, president of High Court Bar Association, 

Hyderabad. 

--- 63 ---

Judgment: 

Zahid Qurban Alavi, J. ñ By a common order we shall dispose of the following constitutional 

petitions and criminal miscellaneous applications:- 

1. C.P. No. D- 86/2000, C.P. No. S- 309/2000, C.P. No. S- 417/2000, C.P. No. S- 

444/200. C.P. No. S- 475/2000, C.P. No. 476/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 164/99, Cr. 

Misc. Appln. No. 428/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No 502/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 

504/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 513/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 542/2000, Cr. Misc. 

Appln. No. 568/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 574/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 886/2000, 

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 629/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 656/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 


Appln. No. 752/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 786/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No 788/2000, 

Cr. Misc. Appln. No.790/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 791/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 




859/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No.860/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 865/2000, Cr. Misc. 





















974/2000, Cr. Misc. Appln. No. 584/2000. C.P. No. D- 35/2000, C.P. No. S- 425/2000. 

2. Several Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under 491 Cr. P.C. and petitions under 

199 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were filed where the 

applicant/petitioner sought the indulgence of the court. In all these matters it seemed 

that the respondents were illegally detaining person (s) and the court was asked to 

get a rule nisi issued for the production of the alleged detenues. In quite a number of 

cases applications were also made for raids to be conducted by officers of the court, 

police and by Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates. The raids were to ascertain whether 

the so called detenues were indeed illegally/improperly detained by the private 

respondents. 

3. The ratios of cases being filed before the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit 

Bench, reached an alarming level. The number of detenues also increased and in 

several petitions/applications the list went upto 100 odd persons whose ages ranged 

from 80 years to 2 months. In some of the cases an entire village was considered to 

be illegally detained. In all the matters the villain of the scene was not the police but 

--- 64 ---

the owners of the land where the alleged detenues were working/tilling the soil. In 

quite a number of cases the owners of the land against whom the accusation had 

been made were represented in court by the lawyers who denied the allegations and 

made several counter allegations. 

4. In order to try and stem the flow of such applications/petitions a general order was 

passed by the judges sitting in the High Court where instead of the police officers or 

the officers of the court, the Civil judges/Judicial Magistrate were issued directions to 

investigate the matter and submit reportÖ..Individual case did make certain 

observations which were common. In most cases the persons who were allegedly 

detained were Haris. In most cases the haris belonged to the Bheel/Kolhi tribes. In 

almost all cases there was no physical detention but there seemed to be a dispute 

over money which was borrowed by the Haris from their landlords. In quite a number 

of cases the Haris were released or were allowed to go whereever they wanted to go 

either by the court directly or after the investigation was done by the Civil 

Judge/Judicial Magistrate. Enough and more publicity was given as an attempt was 

made to give the colour of discrimination against the minorities. The situation 

warranted attention specially when foreign media got involved and curiously all the 

applications centred round the areas of Mirpurkhas, Sanghar, Umerkot. In no other 

areas of Sindh such applications were made. A special bench was constituted and all 

the matters were consolidated. Mr. Jhamat Jethanand and Mr. Allah Bachayo 

Soomro were appointed amicus curiae. Mr. Rasool Bux Palejo on behalf of the Sindh 

Haris Association and Mr. Mohammad Yousif Leghari were also asked to address 

the court besides the other counsels who were representing the interest of the Haris 

and the zamindars. 

5. In order to understand and appreciate this issue we had for the benefit of all 

concerned formulated points of reference as follows:- 

(1) The scope of section 491 Cr. P.C, and our powers thereunder. 

(2) Solution. 

(3) Whether under section 491 Cr.P.C. evidence can be recorded. 

(4) Scope of Sindh Tenancy Act. 

6. Since quite a number of lawyers wanted to address the court therefore it was 

decided that first the counsels on behalf of Haris shall put forward their viewpoints 

whereafter the counsels representing the landlords would reply. The President of the 

Haris Association, Mr. Rasool Bux Palejo, being Senior Counsel took the lead to 

represent the contentions on behalf of the petitioners ventilating grievance against 

the alleged detentions of the Haris followed by Mr. Nandan A. Kella, Mr. Amanullah 

Soomro, Mr. Abdul. Rehman Shaikh whereas the point of view on behalf of the 

zamindar/landlord was projected by M/s. Zahoor Balouch, Javed Bukhari at some 

length whereas Mr. Mohammad Yousuf Leghari who claim to have filed petition for 

the enforcement of legal obligation by the state functionaries. Mr. Jhamat Jethanand 

and Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro rendered assistance as friends of court. Mr. Hakim 

Ali Siddiqi also addressed the court on the issue as representative of the legal 

fraternity. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio Asstt: A.G. concluded the argument by representing 

the .point of view on behalf of the State. All the learned counsel rendered valuable 

assistance and cited large number of case laws which we intend to discuss at 

appropriate place while dealing with the respective contentions. 

7. Mr. Palejo gave a brief resume of the Bheel community who claim to be original 

inhabitants belonging to the downtrodden and suppressed Hindu tribe and are 

private serfs. He further urged that such persons though may not be physically 

--- 65 ---

detained as understood in common parlance but are for all practical purpose under 

restraint which impedes their free movement which according to him amounts to 

improper if not illegal detention. 

8. Adverting to the argument of Mr. Palejo it was contended that the Haris have 

remained virtual slaves of the Wadera from the time they were born. They had no 

way to safeguard their own right. According to him no right existed and therefore the 

Haris were made to undergo tremendous hardship and suffer great humiliation. He 

did concede that Taqavi loan had been taken which had subverted the Haris to the 

Wardera and it was conveyed to him that the amount was due and payable. The so 

called right given to the Haris under the Sindh Tenancy Act was a mere eye wash. 

Nothing can be gained especially when the Tribunal constituted under the Sindh 

Tenancy Art (was) composed of persons who were under the tremendous influence 

of the Wadera. He in fact emphasized that the ordinary Hari had no faith in the 

Tribunal but in case if the Tribunal was made more effective or more broad-based 

then perhaps .it may be in a position to resolve the problem of the workers who till 

the soil. 

9. The learned counsel who also happens to be the President of the Haris Association 

laid great emphasis on various types of detentions. According to him even if under 

section 491 the words were used ìimproperly and illegally detained" the detention as 

such could be varied. It could be a beneficial detention, which would in some ways 

be beneficial to the alleged detenue. It could be an illegal detention where the person 

so detained would be unable to move around without permission. He raised a point 

that detention has also to be mental where for all practical purpose there would be no 

physical impediment in the movement of the Haris but he would know very well that if 

he moved beyond a certain undefined boundary he would be taken to task. This 

brings a question as to what would be the extent of mental detention. The counsel 

contended that the border defined by a home, by a city, by a province and by a 

country could be classic points of mental detention. The counsel stated that at the 

beginning when a child's movement is restricted within the parameter of the house 

and is not allowed to move beyond, a warning of punishment is repeatedly given 

which ultimately creates a boundary in the mind of the child that if he moves beyond 

a particular space then punishment will follow. The movement (sic) he would be 

going into that territory where he was not allowed without permission. According to 

him this entails severe punishment to the Haris who dared to travel beyond the area 

in which he is living with other workers. It would not be out of place to mention, 

several counsel who have appeared on behalf of the petitioners and have dwelt at 

length on the pitiable condition of the Haris. They have even gone to the extent of 

claiming that in case Haris ever attempt to break the shackle then they are beaten up. 

10. The counsel at length referred to the various examples of the Sindh Tenancy Act. We 

shall also examine the existing provisions of Sindh Tenancy Act and the 

recommendation made at the bar. According to the counsel for the petitioner section 

25(4) of Sindh Tenancy Act (now amended) had created a definite restrictions on the 

movement of the Haris from the land in case if money was owed to the Wadera. 

Apparently through an amendment the restriction has been removed. The counsel 

further urged that even if it is contended, accepted and agreed that any amount is 

due and payable to the Wadera by the Haris then it should be kept in mind that there 

cannot be a restriction on the movement of the Haris only on account of the Hari 

being indebted to other waderas. 

11. The overall emphasis was that the Haris cannot be stopped from moving away and 

or there cannot be a restriction on their movement on the sole ground that they owed 

money to the landlord. An example was given of banks who also give loan but in 

--- 66 ---

order to recover the loan they have to file a suit and in order to ensure repayment 

loans are reasonably secured through several documentation. Can such 

documentation be looked into when most of the Haris are illiterate? Indeed every 

individual requires that any action taken against them has to be through due process 

of law. All citizens do enjoy equal rights and freedom, protection of law. 

12. Most applications have been filed under section 491 CR.P.C. It would be worthwhile 

to reproduce the sections. 

1) 491. Power to issue directions of the nature of a habeas corpus. (i) Any High 

Court may, whenever it thinks fit, direct. 

a) that a person within the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction be brought 

up before the court to be dealt with according to law; 

b) that a person illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody 

within such limits be set at liberty; 

c) that a prisoner detained in any jail situated within such limits be brought 

before Court to be there examined as a witness in any matter pending or to 

be inquired into in such Court; 

d) that a prisoner detained as aforesaid be brought before a Court material or 

any commissioners for trial or to be examined touching any matter pending 

before such Court-martial, commissioner respectively; 

e) that a prisoner within such limits be removed from one -custody to another for 

the purpose of trial; and 

f) that the body of a defendant within such limits be brought in on the Sherifís 

return of cepi: corpus to a writ of attachment. 

2) The High Court may, from time to time, frame rules to regulate the procedure in 

cases under this section. 

3) Nothing in this section applies to persons detained under any law providing for 

preventive detention. 

13. Bare reading of 491 Cr.P.C. starts with the words "Any High Court may whenever it 

thinks fit" followed by six different categories of detention. For the purpose of these 

petitions reference to 491(b) Cr. P. C. would be relevant. It deals with a person 

illegally or improperly detained in public or private custody. It should be appreciated 

that the legislature has given clear instructions to the High Court within the words 

ìwhenever it thinks fitî. We fell that in order to issue directions under 491 Cr.P.C, the 

satisfaction of the court is necessary, where after directions can be issued. In order 

to be satisfied, it is imperative that the allegations/accusation made in the application 

should be self-explanatory. Intervention of the court without notice to the other side 

and without seeking an explanation from those who are charged with illegally 

detaining the person may not be justified. Other key words used are "illegally or 

improperly detained in public or private custody". The petitions before us relate to 

detention of individuals in private custody therefore we shall not dilate on the 

formalities to be observed in connection with public detention. 

14. The word private custody would reflect a person whose involvement would be 

restricted either by an individual or a set or individuals or an organization. Therefore 

it should be necessary .to investigate and look into the allegations made in the 

petition before directing that the person illegally or improperly detained within such 

limits should be set free. Whilst drafting the law the legislature has kept in mind that 

detention both private or public can either be illegal or improper. However, High 

--- 67 ---

Court may (not usually) direct a person so detained to be set at liberty if a person 

was illegally or improperly detained. Before setting a persons free, propriety and 

legality of alleged detention should be ascertained first. In cases relating to private 

custody there may be several extra circumstances within which the person is so 

detained. 

15. In the present circumstances, the so called detention of the Haris comes within the 

ambit of private custody and yet the police are called upon to conduct raid, bring the 

alleged detenues to court and then in appropriate cases they were set free. In 

majority of the, cases, the detenues insisted that they had gone through the most 

horrendous experience in their detention. In direct contrast the report submitted by 

the Judicial Magistrate and the Civil Judges who were asked to investigate the matter 

and submit reports were unanimous on the point that there were no physical signs or 

indications of improper or illegal detention. On this aspect Mr. Paleejo had urged that 

detention of Haris was more mental then physical, he had co-related concept of 

mental detention with instructions given to a child not to move beyond the room, 

instructions given through a summon to a person to come to court or instructions 

given to a citizen that he cannot move beyond a certain line without holding certain 

papers which could enable him to cross that infusible line into what would be another 

country. 

16. Theoretically it sounds interesting. However, itís to be seen whether practically such 

detention can be identified. If the need is for a proper identification then it is 

imperative that both sides of the story should be heard, both versions should be 

evaluated, whereafter the so called detainees would be allowed to go free. 

17. In support of respective contentions several case laws have been relied on by the 

learned counsels where the Lordships of the High Court as well as Honourable 

Supreme Court have dilated upon the issue, in cases of habeas corpus. Generally 

such applications are moved before the court in connection with the detention of 

individuals illegally or improperly detained either by private person or public authority. 

Through these applications such individuals who are in detention are supposed to be 

set free, Whether such an application should be granted without looking into the facts 

and without giving notice to the other side it would be proper for us to look at the 

relevant case laws and then give our opinion. 

18. In the case reported in P Cr LJ 1989 Page 2459, it was observed that the detenues 

comprising men, women and children vocally alleged in open court that they were 

subjected to forced labour by respondent at a brick kiln. Respondent stated that 

alleged detenues owed money to him aggregating to Rupees two lacs and by their 

work they had been discharging their liabilities. Respondent further stated that he 

had no objection if detenues were set at liberty if respondent was permitted to claim 

his dues from each of them as might be payable to him in accordance with law, and 

through due process of law. No justification reason or cause existed for detenues to 

be compelled to work with respondent. Detenues were thus set free. Respondent 

was advised to pursue such lawful remedy as was permissible under law to claim his 

money. No one could be forced to work for another even though there may be a 

lawful contract of service applicable to him or her as in any case contract with minor 

was void, ab initio. Small children of tender age could not be made to partake in 

brick-making activities as it would be against all cherished human values. 

19. It was further held that in habeas corpus petition, Courts held (they) cannot function 

in vacuum. They must take due notice of all facts and circumstances of case. Bona 

fide of a petitioner has to be fully examined so that no one is fully permitted to abuse 

process of law. 

--- 68 ---

20. In case in PLD 1976 Lahore 1076, it was observed:- 

ìPetitioner representing that the detenue if not recovered would either be disposed of 

or used as source of income through prostitution. Petitioner by misrepresenting age 

and abduction of girl obtaining bailiff from court. Bailiff recovering lady from her 

uncleís house where her rukhsati arrangements were actually in progres one day 

after her marriage. ìNo evidence produced in support of such reckless allegationsî. 

Process of law not to be utilized for ulterior motives and for personal aggrandizement 

on such solemn occasions in life of an innocent girl. ìPetition having turned out to be 

motivated unjustified and baseless dismissed and petition burdened with cost a of Rs. 

1000.00 payable for respondentsî. 

21. In the reported case in PLD 1962 Karachi 725, it was observed and held that even if 

girl alleged to be in detention of her abductor, High Court was only concerned with 

girl's free consent or otherwise in staying with her abductor. Applicant's contention 

that alleged marriage between girl (and) abductor is ìFasidî. It was not for High Court 

to determine under section 491. Remedy was with Civil Court, 

22. In the reported case in PLD 1997 Lahore 428, it was observed and held that the 

police could not recover and produce the detenues in Court. "Women and children of 

the petitioner's- family prima facie had been made victims of forced labour system 

with his payments under the bonded labour system which was not only in negation of 

the fundamental right guaranteed under article 11 of the Constitution but was an 

offence under sections 11 and 12 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 

as well as under section 371 and 374 PPC in appropriate cases. Police was 

consequently directed to register a case against the petitioner and the brick kiln 

owner who had been detaining the detenues under the Bonded Labour Systemî. 

Police was also directed to recover the detenues and set them at liberty. 

23. In the reported case in PLD 1975 Karachi 118 it was observed and held that the 

case essentially relating to dispute regarding matrimonial affairs must be laid before 

Family Court rather than before. High Court under section 491. Allegations such as 

wrongful confinement, or the like, involving offences criminally punishable under law. 

The criminal courts were normal venue for trial of such allegations. 

Even if party was unable to seek relief under normal remedies provided by law High 

Court may refuse to exercise its powers under section 491. 

24. In the reported case in 1991 MLD 447 it was observed and held that in cases of 

wrongful confinement and unlawful compulsory labour ìcourts have to implement law 

as best as it can be done under Article 199 of the Constitution or even in terms of 

section 491 Cr.P.Cî. Provision of section 491 Cr.P.C. is broad enough to include all 

illegal or improper detenues, public and private, and carries a mandate for ensuring 

treatment in accordance with law making distinction in constitutional subconstitutional 

and even universally recognized applicable rules of international law. 

Detenues were allegedly made to work at a brick kiln as bonded or forced labour 

without their free will and under guards equipped with weapons. Said detenues 

appeared in Court and were set at liberty. 

25. In the reported case in 1972 SCMR 398, it was observed and held that High Court 

coining to conclusion that habeas corpus petition filed .for furthering illicit love affair 

and avoiding criminal prosecution for kidnapping abduction of woman. Relief under 

section 491 held justifiably refused. Courts do not function in vacuum and must .take 

due note of social and moral environments prevailing in community. Such tendency 

on part of some young men to abuse provisions of section 491 in furtherance of their 

illicit love affairs. 

--- 69 ---

26. In the reported case in 1993 MLD Part II 778, it was held and observed that condition 

precedent. Detenue can be set at liberty under section 491 Cr.P.C. only if his 

detention is either illegal or improper. 

It was further held that habeas corpus petition not maintainable if other proper 

remedy is available. Where other proper remedy under the law is available to the 

detenue, habeas corpus petition is not maintainable. 

Bona fides have to be examined. Bona fides of a petition have to be carefully 

examined so that nobody is permitted to abuse the process of law. 

27. In the reported case in 1993 MLD Vol 3, 2505, it was observed and held that the 

averments made in the petition were nowhere near truth and the purpose was not 

pious nor even bona fide. Petitioner had sought the legal assistance by pursuing an 

unusual course and invoking certain specific. or extraordinary power of High Court in 

no clean manner but in a polluted way, like he had been doing in the past. Petition 

which smacked of bad faith even otherwise had no merit and the same was 

dismissed accordingly with special costs of Rs. 3000/-. 

28. Mr. Jhamat Jethanand and Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro learned counsels argued that 

detenues were Haris and they had taken Taqavi loan from their landlord, such 

agreements were executed and thumb-marked by them. They contended that in view 

of this documentary evidence the haris are to be dealt with in accordance with the 

provisions of Sindh Tenancy Act and they are bound to grow the crops 

efficiently/diligently cultivated by them. The alleged detenues were responsible for 

the proper feeding of all the crops and were duly bound to maintain irrigation water 

courses and to perform other labour work that was required for the maintenance of 

crops. It was contended that those applications wore moved in order to defeat the 

provisions of Sindh Tenancy Act. The learned counsels submitted that contents of 

habeas corpus application are falsified by the report of commissioner as there was 

no guard over the detenues nor chains wore applied to them. It was contended that 

the statements of some of the detenues were recorded by this court on 6.7.2000. 

They stated before this court that they had issued no such instructions to applicant to 

move this application. The applicant has moved this application which is frivolous, ill 

motivated, unjustified and baseless. He had stated that the dispute is between 

applicant and the detenues and is to be dealt with under sections 23, 24 and 25 of 

Sindh Tenancy Act and the detenues have to work at the lands of respondents and 

maintain the crops cultivated : by them. He further stated that in case there is some 

dispute, they should approach the Tribunal under the Sindh Tenancy Act for 

resolving the outstanding controversies over the settlement of accounts. The learned 

counsels have placed reliance on (i) Khursheed v. Khushi Muhammad (1970 PCrLJ 

401 (ii) Mst. Mumtaz begum Vs. Zawar and another (PLD 1976 Lahore 1076) and an 

unreported case ñ Naji and another Vs. Rais Agha Muhammad Khan Pathan and 

others in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 408 of 2000 decided by Single 

Bench of this court on 28.7.2000 

29. Adverting to the first formulation viz the scope of section 491 Cr.P.C. and 

courts power thereunder. From the bare perusal of provision of section 491 Cr.P.C. 

in juxtaposition to Article 199 (1) (b) it can be seen that powers under section 491 

Cr.P.C. are more wide in scope in as much as, invoking writ jurisdiction court 

acts on the application of any person whereas, while exercising powers under 

section 491 Cr.P.C. court acts "whenever it thinks fit". It shows that the law can be 

set into motion whenever any information is laid before the court either in form of 

application or by any person otherwise of illegal or improper detention. Though there 

is no limitation on the powers of the court to act on any information placed before it 

regarding illegal or improper detention, In the cases of private detention however, 

--- 70 ---

certain guidelines are provided in various reported cases. Such guidelines may be 

considered akin to the rules-making powers of the High Court to regulate the 

procedure in cases under section 491 Cr.P.C. as provided under subsections 2 to 

section 491 Cr.P.C. First illustrative case is that of IMDAD HUSSAIN v. NOOR 

HASSAN and 5 others (PLD 1974 Karachi 485), wherein a Division Bench at page 

488 observed as follows:- 

ìThere is no doubt the language of section 491 Code of Criminal 

Procedure places no restraint as to the person or class of persons 

who may apply for relief; indeed the person really aggrieved is usually 

so coerced as to be unable himself to make an application. Someone 

else, therefore, has to seek relief on his behalf. As a general rule, 

however, any person having special interest, right or authority in or 

from the person wrongfully detained may seek relief on his behalf, 

and a stranger has no right to make an applicationî. 

It was further observed at page 489 as follows:- 

ìThese principles will apply with greater force in case in which 

allegations are made against private person having illegally detained 

persons who are either minors or females particularly, when litigation 

between the parties is already pending in cases of abduction or 

unlawful detention of a woman or female child under the age of 16 

years for any unlawful purpose by way of making an application to the 

District Magistrate. In many cases such as this the allegations set 

forth in the application for seeking relief under section 491 Cr.P.C. 

usually make out offences punishable under the substantive law for 

which in the ordinary course relief is to be sought under the normal 

procedure laid down under the law rather than making a direct 

approach to the High Court under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under 

section 491 Cr.P.C. or through constitutional means. These remedies 

pertain to jurisdictions that are essentially discretionary in nature and 

may not in a fit case be exercised. An alternate relief available in any 

other quarter, if considered adequate, would normally be treated as a 

sufficient bar to an attempt at such a remedy." 

30. Public detention and private detention is not on the same footing in as much as in 

public detention public authority under law are required to detain a person under 

order of a competent authority and also obliged to maintain record and proceedings 

of such detention. Therefore, it is more easy and convenient to determine whether 

the detention by the public authority is in accordance with law legal or improper. 

Where no legal formalities are complied with by such authority or record is not 

properly maintained then detention apparently may be illegal or improper. However, 

to determine the illegal or improper detention in cases of private detention it cannot 

be determined easily for example a minor in the custody of either of the parent may 

at times be under improper detention. Restraint on unwilling wife by her husband or 

even by parent of a married girl vis-a-vis her husband may be improper detention. 

Even such categories may extend to the employees and other workers gainfully 

employed under a contract or otherwise, who are obliged to render certain 

services under a contract or under some law cannot be said to be illegally or 

improperly detained. In subject petitions where, by and large the complaint has 

been made against zamindar and landlord by the applicant who in some cases is 

so called public spirited citizen and in some case fellow tribesman. As noted above 

in cases of a private detention, the proximity of relationship is a relevant 

consideration while invoking jurisdiction under section 491 Cr.P.C. As held in Basma 

--- 71 ---

Tabassam v. D.C. Shikarpur (1991 MLD 778), the bona fide of the petitioner have to 

be carefully examined so that no person may abuse the process of law. In cases of 

private detention unless through the contents of the petition and material placed 

before the court prima facie it appears that the detention alleged is improper or illegal, 

court may order issuance of a rule nisi directly. Where it is a mere suspicion that the 

detention claimed is Illegal or improper then best course is to issue notice to the 

private individual to show cause against such allegations so that court may be in a 

better position to evaluate the circumstances of the case. As most of the case of 

private detention arise out of strained family relationship or even as in the instant 

case, strained relationship between two set of person whose relationship is regulated 

by law as in these case i.e. Hari and Zamindars. Where the courts prima facie comes 

to a conclusion that relationship between alleged detenue and the person against 

whom detention is alleged is regulated under law or by contract then best course for 

the court is to leave the parties to have the dispute and differences resolved under 

the law regulating their relationship as has been held in the case of Imdad Hussain 

(PLD 1974 Karachi 485). In instant petition, admittedly the relationship between the 

alleged detenues and the private persons who are alleged to have detained them is 

that of Hari and zamindar and their relationship is regulated under Sindh Tenancy 

Act, 1950. 

31. Adverting to next formulation ìthat whether the evidence can be recorded or notî. As 

has been observed above. In the cases of the public detention the public 

functionaries are required to maintain record of detention under law and merely by 

examining such record the court may prima facie form on opinion regarding the 

nature of detention whether it is legal or improper or otherwise. Such parameters are 

not available where the allegations are against the private detention. In such cases 

the person is not detained under any mandate of law by the private person but 

merely by abuse of authority. In such cases finding whether person held is illegally, 

improperly or otherwise detained is not always free from doubts. It all depends from 

case to case basis. 

32. Counsels appeared on behalf of the landlord / wadera. There were several counsels 

who represented various landlords. In some cases landlord also personally appeared. 

By and large the general complaint in matters of 491 Cr.P.C. was that by issuance of 

rule nisi without notice and hearing the respondents, the alleged detenues were 

brought to court by the police. On inquiry the detenues claimed to be illegally 

detained and were therefore released forthwith. This had resulted in a grave injustice 

as only one side of the picture was looked at by the court. There were many varied 

reasons for such petitions to be made and at a particular time of the year. It was 

alleged that the haris were in fact exploiting the landlords in many ways. At the time 

of harvest such applications were made so that they would not be called upon to 

harvest the crop by the landlord. He would either be forced to hire other labour by 

paying more or would be put in a position to accede to the demands of the haris so 

that his crop could be saved. It was also alleged that neighboring waderas due to 

enmity and or competition were creating these situations so that at the appropriate 

time of harvest the haris would go away leaving the waderas and his crop open to 

problems. It was also alleged that all the haris belonged to a particular tribe and 

community who were being converted. Incentives were offered to enable haris to 

devise means to leave the zamindar. If a strict application of the Sindh Tenancy Act 

was made then according to Mr. Jhamat Jethanand the hari would get enough as his 

share from the crop which would enable him to lead a proper life. According to Mr. 

Jhamat the seeds are also to be provided by the landlord and as such the hari can 

and should work hard on the fields so that at the time of harvest both the waderas / 

hari can benefit. Living beyond oneís means and being in a state of continuous debt 

--- 72 ---

has become the main reason for such disputes and the resultant emergence of 

petitions. 

33. In the cases of Ali Ahmed v. Muhammad Yaqoob Alamani (PLD 1999 Karachi 134) a 

Division Bench of this court after examining large number of cases had made the 

observation, though in context of public detention, but such observation are 

applicable with more force in case of private detention. It was held ìthere is no 

prohibition or bar in the entire provision of section 491 Cr.P.C., to pass any of the 

above mentioned order. At the same time we are conscious with the nature of 

proceeding under section 491 Cr.P.C. which is summary in nature and courts are to 

avoid to undertake the process of recording evidence, except to the extent of 

determining illegality or otherwise of the detentionî. In case of private detention such 

necessity may arise frequently. Very fact that the Commissioners were appointed to 

carry out and execute the rule nisi and to record statement and carry out the 

inspection are all parts and parcel of evidence, that may be necessary for the court to 

arrive at the just conclusion. In most of the cases statement of the detenues were 

also recorded and in some cases they have expressed ignorance as to the person 

who have filed the detention petition. In many cases, detenues have obtained taqavi 

loan in order to wriggle out of their obligations and liabilities and have adopted such 

course. 

34. The documents and the record prima facie shows that the cases before us are not 

altogether of illegal or unlawful detention but are disputes between landlords and 

Haris. Said dispute is governed by a special Act i.e. Sindh Tenancy Act 1950. As 

discussed above the applicants and alleged detenues cannot by-pass the forum 

provided by special enactment and choose a short cut by approaching this court. 

This relationship of landlord and tenant is customary in this province since the 

inception of Sukkur Barrage. The people take Taqavi loans from landlord and work 

as Haris with mutual consent but if some dispute arises the matter is referred to the 

Tribunal under the Sindh Tenancy Act. The allegations of confinement of detenues 

are falsified by the report of Commissioner. The detenues were neither under guard 

nor any kind of pressure was over them. No compound wall was found available 

around the houses of detenues. The aforesaid detenues are prima facie proved to be 

Haris of respondents and they are to be dealt with under the above stated law. The 

record, facts and peculiar circumstances of this case reveal that this application is 

vexatious and false. The outstanding controversies between them are to be decided 

under the provisions of Sindh Tenancy Act. Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Act relate 

to the duties and rights of tenant and landlord and debts are to be paid by the tenant 

before leaving, if he is indebted to his landlord, at the time of termination of his 

tenancy. The aforesaid sections read as under:- 

ì23. The following shall be the duties of a tenant in respect of this tenancy, 

namely:- 

a. He shall be responsible for the provisions of requisite animal labour, 

manual and the implements of husbandry to enable the crops grown by 

him to be efficiently cultivated; 

b. he shall be responsible for the proper weeding of all the crops grown by 

him and for the cost of such weeding; 

c. he shall be responsible for the necessary construction and proper 

maintenance of irrigation bunds and water courses within the land 

allotted to him and for the cost of such construction and maintenance; 

d. he shall not cultivate the land of any other landlord if he has been allotted 

a family holding; 

--- 73 ---

e. he shall be responsible for the seed required for sowing; but where a 

landlord supplies any seed to his tenant, only the quantity of seed 

actually supplied and nothing in excess thereof; further when the landlord 

gets remission of land revenue assessment in respect of any survey 

number, the amount of seed which the tenant shall be required to return 

shall be proportionate to the amount of remission of the land revenue 

assessment obtained by the zamindar in respect of that survey number; 

f. he shall transport the landlordís share of produce after ìbataiî to the 

landlordís local place of storage at the expense of the landlord; 

g. he shall be responsible for growing such crops and such average (sic) of 

crops and in such manner as may be specified by the landlord; 

Provided that the tenantís cultivating right under this Act shall not be 

affected; 

h. Any other duties as may be prescribed from time to time. 

24. The following shall be the duties of a landlord, namely:- 

a. he shall be responsible for the proper maintenance of main water 

courses leading from the canal modules to the land, and for the cost of 

such maintenance; provided that the tenant shall be bound to give his 

labour for the silt clearance of such water courses during the irrigation 

session and in return therefor the landlord shall be bound to feed the 

tenant at his own cost; 

b. he shall be responsible for ensuring the supply of the proper share of 

available irrigation water to the land allotted to his tenant; 

c. subject to clause (e) of section 23, he shall be responsible for lending 

seed for sowing to the tenant if the tenant so demands; 

d. any advance of food grains by the landlord to a tenant for domestic 

needs shall be repaid in cash at the market rate at the time, it was lent or 

in kind of equivalent value; 

e. he shall be responsible for allotting a prescribed area on prescribed 

conditions to the tenant for growing cattle fodder and vegetable 

cultivation for the personal use of the tenant in areas where only cotton or 

sugar cane or tobacco or such other crops are grown which do not 

provide fodder for the cattle; 

f. any other duties as may be prescribed for time to time. 

25. (1) The produce of a tenant after deducting such portion thereof as is 

necessary for the purpose of providing until the next harvest for the due 

cultivation of the land and for the support of the tenant and his family, may be 

appropriated towards the detune from the tenant to his landlord. 

Explanation:- For the purpose of evaluating in case the produce of the 

tenant, the wholesale control price fixed for the locality by the Government, 

and if no such price is fixed, the whole sale price prevailing in the local 

market shall be taken as the basis. 

1. After making recoveries set forth in sub section (i), the balance of debt, if 

any, shall be demanded to be a floating debt recoverable from the 

tenantís share of other crops. 

--- 74 ---

2. In case of tenant is indebted to his landlord, if shall be his duty to deposit 

his share of cotton in the landlordís store. Such cotton shall remain in the 

joint possession of the tenant and the landlord until it is divided or until 

delivery is taken by the buyer. 

On termination of his tenancy, a tenant if he be indebted to his landlord, 

shall be liable to pay off his debt before leaving.î 

35. From a bare perusal of the above provision of the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 it is 

abundantly clear that special forum is provided to regulate relationship between Hari 

and Zamindar. Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 also provides for rights, obligations and 

remedies that may be available to the Hari as well as to the Zamindar. 

36. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the view:- 

a. That the jurisdiction to issue rule nisi in exercise of the powers conferred under 

section 491 Cr.P.C. in cases of public detention should be exercised by court. 

However, in cases of private detention it would be appropriate to issue notices to 

the person against whom detention is alleged before issuing rule nisi. We would 

hold that the application made to the High Court under section 491 Cr.P.C. in 

cases of private detention should be strictly scrutinized, facts should be gone 

through before issuing notices to the persons against whom such allegations are 

made. 

b. That the provision of Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 needs to be amended so as to 

bring it in conformity with the requirement of the ground realities. 

c. Since the entire controversy stems from the loans taken by the haris and given 

by the zamindars it is therefore recommended that borrowing and any dispute 

resulting there from be regulated strictly under the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 till 

such time limit of such lending / borrowing is fixed and lending in excess of the 

amount so fixed may be prohibited by bringing appropriate changes in the 

existing law. 

d. In the Sindh Tenancy Act Mukhtiarkar is required to maintain record of tenants 

and tenancies but it is observed no proper record is maintained which also give 

rise to much controversy. We hold that it is obligatory on the part of the 

Mukhtiarkar to make such entries periodically and update the record regularly. 

Remedy against inaction on the part of the Mukhtiarkar may be provided in the 

change enactments. 

e. Disputes arising out of relationship of hari and zamindar and matters incidental 

and ancillary thereto are to be adjudicated decided and determined by a judicial 

forum more appropriately by conferring powers of Tenancy Tribunal on the Civil 

Judge and or Judicial Magistrate as the case may be instead of Mukhtiarkar. 

Appeal against the order of such tribunal may be provided before the District 

Judge. Revisional Jurisdiction may be conferred with the High Court. 

f. Under the Sindh Tenancy Act the hari is not an ordinary labour or workman 

within the meaning of Industrial Relation Ordinance or the Standing Order. He is 

a partner / co-sharer in the produce with the zamindar. Yet a sharp disparity in 

the living standard exists between the hari and the zamindar. For the hari the 

rights and obligations exist under the Sindh Tenancy Act. One of the 

recommendations made was that the hari should be referred to as agricultural 

labour then the government should provide enough safeguards through 

enactments for agricultural labour as they have provided for industrial labour. It 

should be made clear that rights and obligations exists side by side. Exploitation 

by the labour or by the management is both deprecated in any form. Appropriate 

--- 75 ---

amendments may be made to regulate the relationship of workers and seasonal 

workers as well as haris and seasonal haris with the Zamindar by making 

appropriate amendments in law. 

g. Till such time Sindh Tenancy Act is amended as suggested above, we have 

noted that the law also provides alternate remedies for the redressal of the 

grievances that has been urged by the petitioners before us. There is remedy 

provided under section 100 Cr. P.C. for effecting search and recovery of persons. 

For wrongful confinement of detention or wrongful restraint of any person 

recourse can be made to the provision of sections 341 to 345 PPC as remedy 

against such action is provided for under the criminal law. It may not be out of 

place to mention that Sessions Judges by virtue of powers conferred under 

section 25 of the Cr. P.C. are ex-officio justices of peace, exercise powers and 

jurisdiction in accordance with section 22-A and 22-B Cr. P.C. All the powers as 

are conferred on the police officials in accordance with section 54 thereof 

together with power to make arrest and take all such actions and measures 

against whom, there appears to be reasonable complaints or suspicion exists of, 

having committed or participated in a cognizable offence. Even otherwise Sindh 

Tenancy Act does provide remedy with specific reference to haris. Where 

alternate, efficacious remedy is available then a direct approach to this court 

under section 491 Cr. P.C. or in write jurisdiction both being discretionary in 

nature is not to be resorted generally, unless extra-ordinary circumstances exist 

that may warrant bypassing the alternate remedy that is both adequate and 

efficacious. We under facts and circumstances of cases as discussed above, are 

of the view that no such compelling circumstances exist that may persuade us to 

exercise discretionary jurisdiction existing under Article 199 of the constitution or 

under section 491 Cr. P.C. 

In view of the foregoing all the petitions stands dismissed. Since we have made 

several recommendations including changes in Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 to bring it in 

conformity with present day ground realities, therefore copy of the petition be forwarded to 

provincial Government through Ministry of Law to consider the recommendation so made 

and take such appropriate steps to give effect thereto. 

Dt:- 9.1.2002 

--- 76 --- 

Sd/- 

ZAHID QURBAN ALVI, 

JUDGE. 

Sd/- 

MUSHIR ALAM, 

JUDGE.

III 

HRCP grounds for appeal in Supreme Court 

� SHC judgment not based on applicable law nor has it been passed after examining 

each case. 

� The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act not examined at all and the fact that it 

over-rides all other laws ignored. 

� The Sindh Tenancy Act invoked without ascertaining whether a tenancy exists. 

� Denial of relief under Sec 491 CrPC not sustainable. 

--- 77 ---

--- 78 ---

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 

CIVIL PETITION FOR 

LEAVE TO APPEAL NO: _________OF 2002 

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, 

A Society, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, 

Having its registered office at 

Aiwan-i-Jamhoor, 107, Tipu Block, 

New Garden Town, Lahore. 

and chapter offices at Karachi at 1/1-C, 

Block 6, P E.C.H.S Karachi, 

Through its Secretary General Ms. Hina Jilani .........................PETITIONER 

Versus 

1. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior 

Pakistan Secretariat, at Islamabad. 

2. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Law 

and Parliamentary Affairs, Secretariat at Islamabad. 

3. Government of Sindh, through Chief Secretary 

Sindh Secretariat, Karachi. 

4. Home Secretary, Government of Sindh 

Sindh Secretariat, Karachi. 

5. Inspector General of Police, 

Sindh C.P.O, Karachi 

6. Deputy Inspector General of Police, (DIG) 

Mirpurkhas Division, Mirpurkhas. 

7. Commissioner Mirpurkhas Division, Mirpurkhas 

8. District Magistrate, Umerkot District. 

9. District Magistrate, Sanghar District. 

10. District Magistrate, Mirpurkhas District 

11 S.S.P, District Mirpurkhas. 

12. S.S.P, District Umerkot. 

13. S.S.P, District Sanghar. 

14. Dr. Mir Amanullah Talpur s/o 

Mir Haji Ahmed Khan Talpur, Muslim, 

Adult r/o bungalow No.221-G, Citizen 

Housing Society, Hyderabad.....................................RESPONDENTS 

--- 79 ---

CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 185(3) OF THE 

CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 

The following points of law of general public interest and importance arise for determination 

in this Petition:- 

1. Whether refusal of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad to 

exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution or under 

Section 491 of Cr. PC and not to order release of the bonded labourers under 

detention, is valid and justifiable in law? (see page-35 of the Impugned Judgment) 

2. What is the effect and consequence of the provisions of the Bonded Labour System 

(Abolition) Act 1992 on the rights and obligations of the haris working on the 

agricultural lands and whether the said law overrides other laws applicable to the 

haris or labourers? 

3. Whether detention of a labourer or hari on account of any debt payable by him is 

legal or justifiable in the eyes of law? 

4. What constitutes physical detention of the haris in the eyes of law? 

5. Whether the proximity of relationship between the Petitioner and the Detenue is 

relevant and necessary while adjudicating detention petitions under the Article 199 of 

the Constitution or under Section 491 Cr.P.C? (see page-23 of the Impugned 

Judgment) 

6. Whether provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C and Sections 341 to 345 PPC provide 

adequate and efficacious alternate remedy for redress of the grievance against 

wrongful confinement or detention or wrongful restraint as against the remedy under 

Article 199 of the Constitution and Section 491 Cr.P.C ? (see page-34 of the 

Impugned Judgment) 

7. Whether the remedy, if any, under Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 is an equally efficacious 

and adequate alternate remedy in law for a detenue in comparison with the remedy 

under Section 491 Cr.P.C or in writ jurisdiction? (see page-34 of the Impugned 

Judgment) 

8. Whether the provisions of the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 would regulate the 

relationship of haris and zamindar, even though the hari is not registered or 

recognized under the provisions of this Act of 1950? 

9. Whether it would be just, fair and lawful for the courts to provide for and apply 

different criteria, procedure and considerations for adjudicating petitions in respect of 

illegal confinement and detention by a private citizen as against the illegal 

confinement and detention ordered or imposed by a public servant or statutory 

authority? (see para-36 on page-31 of the Impugned Judgment) 

10. Whether the recommendations contained under para-36 of the Impugned Judgment 

of the Learned Court of the High Court are just, fair, valid and enforceable in law? 

11. Whether a common Impugned Judgment of the Learned Court disposing of about 94 

number of cases without considering facts and circumstances of each case and 

without even hearing each of the petitioners or respondents or their counsel, is valid, 

binding or enforceable? 

12. What is the scope of Section 491 Cr.P.C and powers of the High Court thereunder? 

13. What should be the solution? 

--- 80 ---

14. Whether under Section 491 Cr.P.C evidence can be recorded? 

15. What is the scope of Sindh Tenancy Act 1950? 

The questions/issues listed at number 12,13, 14 & 15 above were framed by the said division 

bench of the honorable High Court of Sindh at Hyderabad and are appearing in para-5 on 

page-6 of the Impugned Judgment. All other issues or points of law as listed above arise out 

of the Impugned Judgment and are submitted by the petitioner for consideration by this 

honourable court 

HUMBLY SHEWETH: - 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner above named seeks to impugn the judgment 

dated. 9 th January 2002 passed by the learned division bench of the High Court of Sindh, at 

Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the said learned court), whereby about 94 number of 

petitions including C.P.D No.35 of 2000, (hereinafter referred to as said petition), were 

dismissed. 

Certified true copy of the Impugned Judgment dated 9 th January 2002, is filed herewith and 

marked as Annexure ìAî. 

FACTS 

1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, with 

the objects, inter alia, to struggle for and protect human rights of the citizens and to 

take appropriate action to prevent violations of human rights and to provide aid and 

assistance including legal aid to the victim of human rights violations. 

2. A large number of petitions were filed in the honorable High Court of Sindh Circuit 

Bench at Hyderabad, both by several zamindars as well as by the haris under illegal 

detention or by the friends or relatives of the detenues. The petitioner has been 

actively struggling against the rampant practice of bonded labour, detention & 

victimization of the haris. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 

10 (2) C.P.C in one of the constitution petitions being No.D-35 of 2000, which was 

filed by one of the zamindars. Dr. Mir Amanullah Talpur, the Respondent No. 14, 

and was pending adjudication before the High Court of Sindh Circuit Bench at 

Hyderabad, for including the petitioner as one of the respondents. 

True certified copies of the Memo of Constitution Petition No.D-35 of 2000 as well as 

of the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C, are filed herewith 

and marked as Annexure ìBî & ìCî, respectively. 

3. The aforesaid application was granted by the said learned court vide its Order dated. 

2 nd May 2000, after hearing arguments of the Counsel of the 

petitioner. Thereby the Petitioner was impleaded as one of the Respondents in the 

said Petition. 

True certified copy of the order dated. 2 nd May 2000, passed by the said learned 

court, is filed herewith and marked as Annexure ìDî. 

4. The Respondents No. 1 to 13 are Federal or Provincial Governments, Police and the 

concerned local administrative authorities, as were included in the aforesaid Petition 

C.P No.D-35 of 2000. The Respondent No. 14 above named was the Petitioner in 

the said petition. The Respondents No.6 to 13 are proforma or formal respondents. 

5. The aforesaid petition came up for hearing before the said learned court from time to 

time. On 19 1 ' 1 April 2000 it was admitted for regular hearing. As mentioned above on 

2 nd May 2000, the petitioner was made one of the respondents to the said petition 

--- 81 ---

which was fixed on 17 lh October 2000 for regular hearing and adjourned for want of 

time to 19 th October 2000 for the same purpose. 

6. On 19 th October 2000, the said petition was fixed for regular hearing along with 

several other petitions and several Cr. Misc. Applications mostly challenging 

detention of the haris. On this date only about 7 (seven) of the Counsel, as well as 

the two Advocates appointed by the Court as ìAmicus-Curiaeî, presented their 

arguments, generally on the four issues framed by the said learned court, (see para- 

5 & 6 of the Impugned Judgment), without any reference to any particular case and 

facts and circumstance pleaded therein. The petitioner before this Honorable Court 

or its Counsel were not given an opportunity to address the said learned court of the 

Sindh High Court which decided to reserve its Judgment on 19 th October 2000. 

7. After an undue delay of over fourteen (14) months on 9 th January 2002, the said 

learned court of the Sindh High Court finally announced the Impugned Judgment, 

whereby all the 94 cases were dismissed in a slip-shod manner, without reference 

to the facts and circumstances of each case, without proper application of mind, 

without reference to the applicable provisions of the Bonded Labour System 

(Abolition) Act 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1992), and cases decided 

by the superior courts on the subject and without any reason tenable in law. It 

appears that in the last minute number of the said petition along with one other 

petition was just added with the pen in the list of the cases disposed off by the 

Impugned Judgment. It may be noted that there is no reference in the Impugned 

Judgment to the facts and circumstances of the said Petition No.35/2000 and not 

even name of the respondent or its counsel is mentioned anywhere in the Impugned 

Judgment. 

8. The said learned court has dismissed all the cases whether filed by the landlords or 

by the detenue haris or their friends or relatives. The result is that after the 

announcement of the Impugned Judgment, the honorable Sindh High Court at 

Hyderabad is not entertaining any petition filed by any bonded labourer or haris 

under illegal detention, in view of several findings, views, observations and 

recommendations as contained in the Impugned Judgment which are not only 

without jurisdiction or lawful authority, untenable in law but also prejudicial to the 

interest and cause of the petitioner as well as of the bonded labourers, haris and 

their families. 

9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Impugned Judgment, the Petitioner 

considered it necessary to assail the same through this Civil Petition for Leave to 

Appeal, on the following, amongst other, grounds:- 

GROUNDS 

A. The impugned Judgment (Annexure "A") is neither based on the applicable laws 

nor on the facts on record nor has it been passed after conducting proper hearing or 

considering the material on record or considering the points of fact and law in each 

case. 

B. The refusal of the said learned court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under 

Article 199 of the Constitution or under Section 491 of Cr. PC, and not to order 

release of the bonded labourers in detention or pass any order for redress of the 

grievances of the illegally detained bonded labourers or haris, is unlawful, 

unjustifiable in law, without jurisdiction or lawful authority and in violation of the cases 

decided by this apex Court and High Courts. 

--- 82 ---

C. The said learned court has grossly erred in law by completely ignoring and 

disregarding the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992 which over rides other 

laws. 

D. The said Learned Court has not considered or appreciated the fact that after the 

enforcement of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992, provisions of 

Sindh Tenancy Act 1950, in particular its Section 25 regarding the alleged debt 

payable by the hari, have become redundant, repealed and unenforceable in law. 

Hence, reliance placed by the said learned court in para-10 on page 9 of the 

Impugned Judgment, on the provisions of Section 25 of the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950, 

is wholly misconceived, without any lawful authority and of no lawful effect. 

E. The said learned court has erred in law by holding that the provisions of the Sindh 

Tenancy Act 1950 are applicable and the remedies provided thereunder are 

available to the haris, without ascertaining the fact whether the haris under detention 

were registered under Section 9 or recognized as haris under the said Act of 1950 or 

whether the Tribunal under Section 26 of the said Act of 1950 was existing and 

functional or not? It is submitted that to the best of the knowledge and information of 

the petitioner neither the haris in question were registered under Section 9 nor any 

Tribunal is established or functioning in the concerned districts of Sindh, under 

Section 26 of the said Act of 1950. 

F. The said learned court erred in law by prescribing different criteria, 

procedure and considerations for adjudicating petitions in respect of illegal 

confinement and detention by a private citizen as against the illegal 

confinement and detention ordered or imposed by a public servant or statutory 

authority. (see pnra-36 on page-31 of the impugned Judgment). 

G. The said learned division bench has erred in law by holding that provision of section 

100 Cr.P.C and sections 341 to 345 P.P.C provide adequate and ' efficacious 

alternate remedy for redress of the grievance against wrongful confinement or 

detention or wrongful restraint as against the remedy under Article 199 of the 

Constitution and section 491 Cr.P.C. (see page-34 of the Impugned Judgment) 

H. The said learned court has erred in law by not appreciating the fact that in none of 

the cases there was any dispute between tenant and zamindar regarding the terms 

and conditions of tenancy. In almost all cases the complaint was against the illegal 

arrest and detention of the haris by the zamindar with the connivance of the local 

administration. The said learned court further erred in law in holding that the remedy, 

if any, under Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 is an equally efficacious and adequate 

alternate remedy in law for a detenue hari in comparison with the remedy under 

section 491 Cr.P.C or in writ jurisdiction. (see page-34 of the Impugned Judgment) 

I. The Impugned Judgment appears to have been passed on whims, fancies, 

conjectures, surmises and assumptions without considering or ascertaining facts and 

circumstances of each case and without careful or proper application of mind on the 

provisions of the applicable laws. 

J. Most of the recommendations contained under para 36 of the Impugned Judgment of 

the said learned court, are either irrelevant and vague or unfair, unlawful, in violation 

of the applicable laws, hence unenforceable in law. 

K. The said learned court has erred in holding that "in almost all cases there was no 

physical detention but there seemed to be a dispute over money which was 

borrowed by the haris from their landlord", (see para-4 on pagc-5 of the Impugned 

Judgment). This finding is not only factually incorrect but the learned court has totally 

--- 83 ---

ignored the fact that such loans allegedly borrowed by the haris have been declared 

illegal and invalid by the said Act of 1992. 

L. The said learned court has erred in law by holding that "curiously all the applications 

centred around the areas of Mirpurkhas, Sanghar & Umerkot. In no other areas of 

Sindh such applications were made", (see para-4 on page-5 of the Impugned 

Judgment) This finding is factually incorrect as large number of bonded labourers / 

detenues from other districts of Sindh such as Thatta, Hyderabad, Badin, Tharparkar 

& Nawabshah had in the past filed a number of cases in the same Circuit Bench at 

Hyderabad of the Sindh High Court and many of them had received their release 

orders through the same court. 

M. The said learned court has erred in law by holding that, ìreports were unanimous on 

the point that there were no physical signs or indications of improper or illegal 

detention", (see para-15 on page-13 of Impugned Judgment). In the first place such 

reports were vague and evasive and some reports could also mean to have impliedly 

admitted the allegation of detention. In any event, several hundreds of haris/bonded 

labourers were freed through the orders of the High Court of Sindh at Hyderabad in 

the recent past only. This is an irrefutable proof of the rampant illegal practice of 

bonded labour or physical detention of the haris, continuing in various districts of 

Sindh, which can be. verified by the record of the High Court of Sindh at Hyderabad 

N. The Impugned Judgment suffers from contradiction in terms. For example, it refers to 

and relies upon cases decided by the superior courts, inter alia, P.Cr.LJ 1989 page- 

2459 and PLD- 1997 Lahore 428, which do not, in any manner lend support to the 

observations and findings of the said learned court. In fact the case decided by the 

Lahore High Court, contains a clear reference to the Bonded Labour System 

(Abolition) Act 1992. The bonded labourers/detained haris were ordered to be 

released in all these cases. However, despite knowledge about such cases and the 

said Act of 1992, the learned court chose to dismiss all the cases and refused to 

exercise its jurisdiction to order release of the bonded labourers or detained haris. 

O. In the Impugned Judgment irrelevant cases decided by superior courts have also 

been discussed and relied upon, for example PLD 1962 Karachi 725 & PLD 1975 

Karachi 118, etc., which relate to matrimonial or family disputes based on 

controversial facts, allegations and counter allegations by and against members of 

the same family. 

P. The cases decided by the superior courts referred to or relied upon in the Impugned 

Judgment do not in any manner support or justify the conclusions drawn, findings, 

and observations in the Impugned Judgment. 

Q. The two amicus-curiae, Mr. Jhamat Jethanand & Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, who 

were supposed to be friends of the court, impartial and unbiased, had in fact misled 

the court by not referring to the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) 

Act 1992 and by placing reliance solely on the provisions of the Sindh Tenancy Act 

1950 and they had in fact pleaded the cause of the zamindar/landlord only. This is 

evident from the submissions made by the two amicus-curiae as contained in para 

28 starting from page 19 of the Impugned Judgment. 

R. While deciding the first issue framed by the court relating to the scope of section 491 

Cr.P.C and Article 199 of the Constitution, the learned court has though referred to a 

reported case PLD 1974 Karachi 485 in which it was held that the scope of section 

491 Cr.P.C is very wide and allows any person having special interest to invoke the 

jurisdiction against the wrongful confinement of any other person. Despite this ruling 

and without ascertaining the relationship between the petitioner and the detenue and 

without determining bonafide or bad faith of the petitioner in each of the cases, the 

--- 84 ---

said learned court has erred in holding that all the Petitions are malafide, vexatious 

and false and decided to dismiss all the cases, see paras-29 & 30 and paras 32 & 

34 of the Impugned Judgment. 

S. While discussing the issue framed by the court itself regarding recording of evidence, 

no categorical findings have been given by the learned court and instead several 

prejudicial and detrimental observations and views based on conjectures and 

surmises have been expressed, such as: (a) as the remarks appearing in para-32 on 

page 25 of the Impugned Judgment about the malafide and timings of the petitions 

against illegal detention of haris; (b) the remarks at the end of para-32 that " living 

beyond oneís means and being in a state of continuous debt has become the main 

reason for such disputes and the resultant emergence of petitions"; (c) remarks at 

the end of para-33 that " in many cases detenues have obtained taqavi loan in order 

to wriggle out of their obligations and liabilities and have adopted such course"; (d) 

remarks and observations in para 34 that " the cases before us are not all together of 

illegal or unlawful detention but are disputes between landlords and haris, such 

dispute is governed by a special Act i.e. Sindh Tenancy Act 1950"; (e) the remarks in 

the same para that " the people take taqavi loans from landlord and work as hari with 

mutual consent"; (f) the findings on page-28 of the Impugned Judgment that "this 

application is vexatious and false"; and (g) that "sections 23,24 & 25 of the Act relate 

to the duties and rights of the tenant and landlord and debts are to be paid by the 

tenant before leaving, if he is indebted to his landlord at the time of termination of his 

tenancy", etc. The said learned court was of the erroneous, misconceived and 

baseless view that the detenuesí petitions were filed with malafide motives and that 

the same were vexatious and false and the zamindar is entitled in law to detain his 

hari if he is indebted to him. These remarks, observations and findings are baseless, 

unsubstantiated , in violation of the laws, without any lawful authority and untenable 

both on points of facts and law. In any event general remarks have been passed in 

respect of all the petitions which have been dismissed. 

T. The Impugned Judgment was passed without hearing the petitioner above named or 

its counsel and without hearing the respective parties or their counsel in every case 

and without examining or referreing to the facts and circumstances of each case. 

Despite this fact, general remarks, findings and observations have been passed 

about the malafide, baselessness, vexatiousness of all the cases, dismissed by the 

learned court by a common judgment. 

U. Even otherwise the Impugned Judgment is in violation of the constitution, in 

particular its Article 4 and fundamental rights, applicable laws and the principle of 

natural justice, hence, it is illegal and of no lawful effect. 

V. The petitioner craves leave of this honourable court to urge and plead further facts 

and grounds at the time of hearing of this petition. 

PRAYER 

It is therefore, humbly prayed by the petitioner, that this honourable court may be pleased 

to:- 

a. Declare that the Impugned Judgment (Annexure ìAî) of the said learned court is 

without any lawful authority, illegal and of no lawful effect, and the same may be set 

aside. 

b. Declare that no zamindar or employer has any lawful right or authority to detain his 

hari, labourer or employee indebted to him and all such detenues may be ordered to 

be set free forthwith. 

--- 85 ---

c. Direct the Respondents No. 1 to 13 to ensure strict implementation of and 

compliance with the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992. 

d. Grant such other relief, as this honorable court may deem lit and proper in the 

interest of justice. 

DRAWN BY FILED BY: 

(IQBAL HAIDER) 

Senior Advocate Supreme 

Court of Pakistan 

Karachi 

Dated:____ March 2002 

--- 86 --- 

(K.A. WAHAB) 

Advocate on Record

IV 

SC judgment of 2008 on bonded labour 

� Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act not only bars denial of workersí fundamental 

rights, it also wipes out all liabilities incurred as a result of violation of these rights. 

� Except for regular tenancies under the Sindh Tenancy Act the Act of 1992 applies to 

agricultural workers also. 

� Even the Tenancy Act does not allow a landlord to force a tenant to work on his land 

against his will. 

� In a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution or Sec 491 CrPC it is the courtís 

duty to satisfy itself that a detenue is held under law. 

� There is no legal requirement for a stricter scrutiny of a petition in case of detention 

in private custody. In cases where the right to detention in private custody is asserted 

on the basis of some authority in law, the court may require such right to be 

adjucated upon first. 

� The jurisdiction of superior courts to enforce fundamental rights extends to private 

persons too. 

--- 87 ---

--- 88 ---

In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 

Present Zia Perwez, Sabihuddin Ahmed 

and Sarmad Jalal Osman, JJ 

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and 2 others --- Appellants 

Versus 

Government of Pakistan and other --- Respondents 

Civil Appeals Nos. 1139 to 1141 arising out of Civil Petitions Nos. 343-K, 

344-K and 376-K of 2002, decided on 29 th December, 2008. 

(On appeal against the Judgment dated 9-1-2002 passed by High Court of Sindh, Circuit 

Bench, Hyderabad in C.P.D no 35 of 2000) 

Syed Iqbal Haider, ASC, for Appellant (in all appeals). 

Mr Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG and Mr A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 

(in C. A. No. 1139 of 2002). 

Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik, Addl.A.-G. Sindh along with Qazi Muhamamd Abbas, PDSP 

Mirpurkhas, Altaf Hussain, D.P.O. Sanghar, Abdul Ghaffar Butt, ASI Tando Mitha Khan and 

Sayed Fazil Shah, EDO District Government Sanghar for Respondents Nos. 2-13 (in C.A. No. 

1139 of 2002). 

Nemo for Respondent No. 14 (In C.A. No. 1139 of 2002), 

Mr Abdul Fateh Malik, Addl. A.-G. Sindh for Respondents Nos.l-10(in C.A. No. 1140 

of 2002). 

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in C.A. Nol.1141 of 2002). 

Mr Abdul Fateh Malik, Addl. A.-G. Sindh for Respondents Nos. 4 to 6 (in C.A. No. 

1141 of 2302). 

JUDGMENT 

Date of hearing: 18th November, 2008. 

SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J. -These appeals through leave of this Court are directed 

against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad dated 9-1-2002 

dismissing Constitutional Petition No.D-35 of 2000 preferred by the respondent No. 14 and 

about 94 petitioners either under Article 199 of the Constitution or section 491, Cr.P.C. 

calling in question the detention of a large number of people in private custody. 

2. It may be mentioned that the respondent No. 14 is an agriculturist (and) had moved 

the Court alleging that a large number of people having obtained loans from 

zamindars and having contracted to render services being otherwise bound to do so 

under the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 were misusing the provisions of section 491 

Cr.P.C. to avoid repayment of the loans or to render services in accordance with the 

Tenancy Act and the contracts voluntarily entered into by them. On the other hand, 

the other petitions were preferred on behalf of the several individuals (hereinafter 

referred to as "detenues") alleged to be unlawfully detained by different land owners 

and subjected to forced labour in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to 

them and the law included in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992. It 

appears that only three of the parties to the proceedings before the High Court 

namely the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan being the respondent in 

Constitutional Petition No.D-35 of 2000 and the petitioners in Constitutional Petitions 

--- 89 ---

Nos.465 and 475 of 2000 namely Kanji and Dongro have impugned the aforesaid 

consolidated judgment of the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court 

inter-alia to consider the "exact scope of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 

1992 and ^ its effect on the provisions of the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 and other 

laws." 

3. There does not appear to be any serious dispute as to the factual matrix of the 

controversy. The factum of indebtedness to land owners was not seriously 

questioned by the detenues who only alleged that they or their family members were 

forced to work on the lands against their will till debts were liquidated. At the same 

time, as is evident from para. 32 of the impugned judgment, the landlord also did not 

seriously dispute the existence of any restraint upon the movement of the detenues. 

They only alleged that the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the Court was being invoked 

for exploiting the landlords who, on account of the refusal of the tenant to work or 

moving away from the land, were required to hire other labour at heavy cost at the 

time of harvesting the crop unless their tenantsí unreasonable demands were yielded 

to. It was further contended that the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950 contained inbuilt 

provisions for resolving all disputes and the invocation of the jurisdiction of the High 

Court under Article 199 of the Constitution or section 491 Cr.P.C. amounted to abuse 

of the process of law. 

4. None of the private respondents including Dr. Mir Amanullah Talpur has entered 

appearance. However , we have heard apart from Mr. Iqbal Haider, learned counsel 

for the appellant, Mr. Amir Raza Naqvi, learned Deputy Attorney-General on behalf of 

the Federal Government and Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik, Additional Advocate-General on 

behalf of the functionaries of the Provincial Government. While the former fully 

supported the appellant's case, the latter stoutly defended the impugned judgment 

and supported the viewpoint of the lan'dlords in the controversy before us. 

5. Mr. Malik argued that miseries of tenants arose out of non-implementation of land 

reforms, stipulating maximum limit on the holdings of agricultural land, and not from 

issues raised in this appeal but unfortunately NGOs were not raising real problems 

and were only supporting insignificant controversies. While we have great respect for 

the views of the learned counsel, particularly in view of his long-standing experience 

and his struggle for the cause of the downtrodden, but we reminded him that this 

Court was only concerned with the lis before it and he was appearing as a law officer 

of the Provincial Government. Indeed, if he felt that the mandate of the law was not 

being enforced he could well advise his clients to do so but we were only concerned 

with the present controversy and could not pronounce upon extraneous matters. 

6. Syed Iqbal Haider, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly raised the following 

grounds:ó 

(i) That under section 5 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 any 

custom or practice or a contract whether entered into before or after the 

commencement of the Act by virtue of which any person or a member of his 

family is required to do any work or any service as bonded labour shall' be void 

and inoperative and according to section 6 any bonded debt that remained 

unsatisfied would stand extinguished; 

(ii) That no obligation of hari to work against his will, stated to be created under the 

Sindh Tenancy Act, could remain valid and operative in view of the provisions of 

section 3 of the 1992 Act which has an overriding effect on all other laws; and 

(iii) That in any event there was no justification for the honourable High Court to 

decline relief to a person in unlawful confinement. 

--- 90 ---

7. In support of his first contention learned counsel submitted that it might well be that 

the haris or other persons employed in agriculture might have received loans from 

landlords and might have also entered into contracts for rendering services as a 

consideration for the same. Nevertheless by virtue of the specific provisions' of 

sections 5 and 6 not only the contract became void but even the obligation to repay 

the debt stood extinguished. In support of his contention learned counsel drew our 

attention to clauses (a) to (e) of section-2, section 5 and section-6 (subsections (1) 

and (2) of the Act which may be reproduced as follows:ó 

"Section-2. 

(a) "advance (peshgi)" means an advance (peshgi), whether in cash or in 

kind, or partly in cash or partly in kind, made by one person (hereinafter 

referred to as the creditor) to another person (hereinafter referred to as 

the debtor); 

(b) "bonded debt" means an advance (peshgi) obtained, or presumed to 

have been obtained, by a bonded labourer under, or in pursuance of, the 

bonded labour system; 

(c) "bonded labour" means any labour or service rendered under the bonded 

labour system; , 

(d) "bonded labourer" means a labourer who incurs, or has, or is presumed 

to have, incurred, a bonded debt; 

(e) "bonded labour system" means the system of forced, or partly forced, 

labour under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, 

entered into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that,ó 

(i) in consideration of an advance (peshgi) obtained by him or by any of 

the members of his family [whether or not such advance (peshgi) is 

evidenced by any document] and in consideration of the interest, if 

any, due on such advance (peshgi), or 

(ii) in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or 

(iii) for any economic consideration received by him or by any of the 

members of his family; 

he wouldó 

(1) render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person 

dependent on him, labour or service to the creditor, or for the benefits of 

the creditor, for a specified period or for an unspecified period, either 

without wages or for nominal wages, or 

(2) forfeit the freedom of employment or adopting other means of livelihood 

for a specified period or for an unspecified period, or 

(3) forfeit the right to move freely from place to place, or 

(4) forfeit the right to appropriate or sell at market value any of his property 

or product or his labour or the labour of a member of his family or any 

person dependent on him, 

and includes the system of forced, or partly forced, labour under which a 

surety for a debtor enters, or has or is presumed to have entered, into an 

agreement with the creditor to the effect that, in the event of the failure of 

the debtor to repay the debt, he would render the bonded labour on 

behalf of the debtor; 

--- 91 ---

Section-5. Agreement, custom, etc., to be void.óAny custom or tradition or 

practice or any contract, agreement or other instrument, whether entered into 

or executed before or after the commencement of this Act, by virtue of which 

any person, or any member of his family, is required to do any work or render 

any service as a bonded labourer, shall be void and inoperative. 

Section 6. Liability to repay bonded debt to stand extinguished.--(1) On the 

commencement of this Act, every obligation of a bonded labourer to repay 

any bonded debt, or such part of any bonded debt as remains unsatisfied 

immediately before such commencement, shall stand extinguished. 

(2) After the commencement of this Act no suit or other proceeding shall lie 

in any Civil Court, Tribunal or before any other authority for the recovery of 

any bonded debt or any part thereof. 

8. Surprisingly, it appears from the impugned judgment that -the question of application 

of the provisions of the above mentioned Act was not seriously taken up by the 

parties before the High Court. At the same time Their Lordships too, though referred 

to a precedent and mentioning some of its provisions, no effort to carefully examine 

the effect of the statute which prima facie appears to have a direct bearing on the 

controversy, was undertaken. Nevertheless, being a pure question of law and 

considering the principle that a Judge is required to wear all the laws of the country 

on the sleeve of his robe, as well as the fact that leave has already been granted to 

examine the provisions of this Act, we have considered these provisions carefully 

with the assistance of learned counsel. 

9. In the above context it needs to be observed that the abominable practice of bonded 

labour was taken judicial notice of by this Court in the well known case of Darshan 

Masih alias Rehmatay and others v. The Stale (PLD 1990 SC 513) taken up by this 

Court in its jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights under Article 184 (3) of the 

Constitution by way of public interest litigation. Apart from directing the release of the 

persons detained in flagrant violation of their fundamental rights inter-alia guaranteed 

by Article-11 the Court suggested effective measure to curb this practice through 

legislation, on the basis of recommendations of a committee constituted by the Court. 

10. In the report of the committee ìthe peshgi system" was described as a cruel method 

of enslaving the workers for the rest of their lives. It was recommended, inter alia, 

that the system of bonded labour in all walks of life be abolished, the advances by 

way of peshgis and rights accruing therefrom should stand extinguished and 

recovery of peshgis be made offences under the law through appropriate legislation. 

The above background needs to be kept in view while taking into consideration the 

provisions of the Act which is undoubtedly a piece of welfare legislation enacted only 

for the welfare of a disadvantaged section of the people and aimed at curbing certain 

abominable practices. 

11. It is evident from a bare reading of section-5 that even a voluntary contract whereby 

any person is required to render services as a bonded labourer will be void and 

inoperative. Section 2(d) defines a bonded labourer as a labourer who incurs or is 

presumed to have incurred a bonded debt. Under section 2(b) a bonded debt means 

an advance obtained by a bonded labourer under the Bonded Labour System which 

has been exhaustively defined in section 2(c) reproduced in para-6 of the judgment. 

It is, therefore, evident that all contracts whereby a person agrees to render services 

without wages or for nominal wages, forfeits the freedom of employment or 

movement or forfeits the right to appropriate or sell, at market value, any of his 

property or product of his labour must be held to be void. To this extent the statute 

basically gives effect to the mandate of Article 11 of the Constitution prohibiting 

--- 92 ---

forced labour, Article 15 guaranteeing freedom of movement and Article 23 

guaranteeing the right to hold and dispose of property. It indicates that the legislature 

in its wisdom envisaged an obligation to work against one's wishes for settlement of 

a private debt not to be one created for a public purpose nor a fetter upon the right of 

movement in the said context as a reasonable restriction in the public interest. 

12. The above however could only lead to the conclusion that while forced labour and 

clog on the freedom of movement by way of consideration for a repayment of debt 

would be impermissible, the outstanding amount could be recovered through normal 

legal channels. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the magnitude of exploitation 

of disadvantaged people arising from unequal bargaining position as can be inter alia, 

inferred from the pronouncement of the Court and the report forming the basis of the 

final order in Darshan Masih's case the legislature has moved a step further towards 

eliminating the abominable practice of bonded labour. It is in this context that 

sections 6 and 8 have to be seen. Section 6(1) stipulates that every obligation to 

repay a bonded debt or such part of the debt as has remained unsatisfied on the 

date of the commencement of the Act shall stand extinguished. Section 6(2) bars any 

suit or proceedings before Civil Court or other Tribunal for recovery of any bonded 

debt and section 6(9) provides for abatement of such suits pending on the date of 

commencement of the Act. Section 8 not merely forbids a creditor to accept any 

payment against a bonded debt but also provides that doing so would render him 

liable to be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to three years. 

13. Mr. Iqbal Haider appears to be correct to the extent that on account of section 3 of 

the Act explicitly conferring an overriding effect to its provision, any provision in an 

earlier law repugnant thereto would be void and inoperative. We may add that on 

account of mandate of Article-143 of the Constitution, having been enacted by the 

Parliament, its provisions would prevail upon any existing law being made by a 

provincial legislature. Nevertheless to determine the extent of inconsistency it was 

imperative that a careful analysis of the provisions of the Sindh Tenancy Act was 

undertaken. Unfortunately this was neither done in the impugned judgment nor 

attempted by any of the learned counsel appearing before us. However, before 

proceeding to do so for settling the law in terms of the leave granting order, we might 

consider the alternate contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 

14. In the alternative Mr. Iqbal Haider urged that the appellants Kanji and Dongro were 

not the recorded tenants of any landlord and as such the provisions of the Sindh 

Tenancy Act were not attracted to their cases. Neither this contention was rebutted 

on a factual plane nor did the learned Additional Advocate-General argue that the 

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 was inapplicable to the workforce in 

agriculture. Unfortunately, the Honourable High Court recorded an omnibus order to 

the effect that all disputes were to be resolved according to the mechanism provided 

in the Sindh Tenancy Act, without caring to arrive at a finding of fact in each case 

whether a landlord tenant relationship in terms of the aforesaid Act existed to confer 

jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to resolve the dispute. We are therefore of the view that 

in the absence of finding as to the existence of a tenancy under the Sindh Tenancy 

Act the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 would be fully applicable to the 

case. 

15. Coming to the question of conflict between the two laws. It is evident from the 

preamble of the Sindh Tenancy Act that the statute was enacted with the object of 

regulating the rights and liabilities of agricultural tenants and their landlord in the 

Province. Section-3 speaks of two classes of tenants i.e. permanent tenants and 

tenants at will who are entitled to occupation of land only for a cropping season 

under section 16 and liable to ejectment upon the end of the season. However in 

--- 93 ---

terms of section 8 a tenant at will acquires the rights of a permanent tenant in case 

he cultivates land of at least four acres for the same landlord for a continuous period 

of three years. When a tenant at will acquires the status of a permanent tenant under 

section-8 or is granted permanent rights upon the landlord under section-7, he 

acquires valuable interest in the land including the right to possession, the right to 

transfer (with the permission of the landlord) and devolution of tenancy rights upon a 

lineal descendant in the event of his demise or incapacity. Sections 4 to 7 and 10 to 

12 elaborately describe the rights of a permanent tenant. Section 9 requires that the 

names of permanent tenants shall be entered in the record of rights maintained in a 

prescribed manner. 

16. Sections 13 and 14 are the only provisions enabling terminatidn of rights of a 

permanent tenant. Under section 14 a landlord may terminate the tenancy in case of 

bona fide requirement of land for self cultivation, a non-agricultural purpose or other 

specified reasons after giving the tenant one year's notice in writing stating the 

reasons. The bona-fides of the landlord are justiciable before a Tribunal constituted 

under section 26 upon an application preferred by a tenant. In case the landlord fails 

to use the land for the purpose mentioned in the notice within one year from the date 

of taking possession, the tenant is entitled to restitution upon the same terms as 

existed at the time of termination. 

17. Section 13 however stipulates termination of tenancy on grounds of certain acts of 

commission or omission of tenant i.e. abandonment of tenancy, using land for nonagricultural 

purposes without permission of the landlord, failure to cultivate the land 

personally, failure to pay the due share of produce to the landlord or doing an act 

injurious to the land. Such ejectment can be caused through an order of the Tribunal 

where obviously the landlord would be required to establish that any ground for 

ejectment has taken effect. Sections 23 and 24 contemplate certain duties on the 

part of the tenants and the landlords respectively. Section 22 contemplates that 

notwithstanding any agreement usage or custom the landlord could not take any free 

labour from a tenant and any wages in respect of labour undertaken by the tenant 

shall be paid to him on the same day at determination of each day's work in 

accordance with the rates prevailing in the locality. 

18. From the above provisions we are of the opinion that the Sindh Tenancy Act does 

not, strictly speaking, create a pure employer-employees relationship between 

landlords and tenants. On the contrary it creates a quasi-partnership whereby the 

tenant acquires certain interests in the land and does not receive wages but only a 

share in the produce in so far as his obligations as a tenant are concerned. This 

nevertheless does not lead to the conclusion that a tenant could be forced to perform 

his obligations under the Act. The obligation to cultivate land is a condition precedent 

for protection of a tenantís valuable right in property and in the event of his failure to 

do so the consequences are spelt out in the Act itself inasmuch as his tenancy could 

be terminated in accordance with Section-13. Indeed a person may forfeit his legal 

rights acquired under a statute or a contract upon failure to perform his obligations 

but there could be no justification for forcing him to work against his will in flagrant 

violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The landlordís 

contention in the para-32 of the impugned judgment, therefore merited outright 

rejection. 

19. Mr. Iqbal Haider also appears to be right to the extent that the High Court was plainly 

wrong in assuming that every detenue was a permanent tenant of the respective 

landlord under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. In this context it was incumbent 

upon Their Lordships to examine in each case whether the detenue was recorded 

tenant of the landlord in terms of section-9 of the Sindh Tenancy Act and whether he 

--- 94 ---

enjoyed occupancy rights in respect of at least four acres of land. Obviously in the 

absence of such facts the landlords could not rely on the provisions of the Tenancy 

Act. 

20. It appears from the impugned judgment that reliance was placed on Section 25 of the 

Sindh Tenancy Act for contending that a tenant could be forced to work on the land 

ownerís land till his outstanding liability from the debt owed by him was liquidated. It 

may therefore be necessary to examine the provisions of Section-25 carefully, which 

are reproduced as follows: 

ì25. General Provisions regarding debt. (1) The produce of a 

tenant after deducting such portion thereof as is necessary for the 

purposes of providing until the next harvest of the due cultivation of 

the land and for the support of the tenant and his family may be 

appropriated towards the debt due from the tenant to his landlord. 

Explanation: For the purpose of evaluating in cash the produce of 

the tenant, the wholesale control price fixed for the locality by the 

government, and if no such price is fixed, the wholesale price 

prevailing in the local market shall be taken as the basis. 

(2) After making recoveries set forth in sub-section (1), the balance of 

debt, if any, shall be deemed to be a floating debt recoverable from 

the tenantís share of other crops. 

(3) In case a tenant is indebted to his landlord, it shall be his duty to 

deposit his share of cotton in the landlord's store. Such cotton shall 

remain in the joint possession of the tenant and the landlord until it is 

divided or until delivery is taken by the buyer. 

(4) On termination of his tenancy, a tenant, if he be indebted to his 

landlord, shall be liable to pay off his debt before leaving." 

21. It appears to have been inferred by the Honourable High Court on the basis of the 

language of the above quoted subsection (4) that even on termination of his tenancy 

the tenant, in the event of indebtedness to the landlord, could not leave prior to 

settlement of his outstanding liabilities under the debt and as such could be forced to 

continue rendering services. 

22. In the above context, it needs to be seen that the fundamental right guaranteed by 

Article-11 prohibits all forms of forced labour subject to the exception that compulsory 

service by a person undergoing punishment for offence or required by any law for a 

public purpose is permissible. The expression "public purpose" appears elsewhere in 

the Constitution i.e. Article 24(2) and other constitutions and statutes and has been 

interpreted by superior Courts. In the case of Huma Bai Framjee v. Secretary of 

State for India reported in (42 l.A. 44 PC) it was held by the Privy Council that "public 

purpose" would mean an object or aim in which general interest of the community as 

opposed to particular interest of individuals is directly and vitally concerned. The 

same view was followed inter alia by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State 

of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh reported in (AIR 1952 SC 252) and a Full Bench of 

Lahore High Court in the case of Allah Ditta v. Province of Punjab reported in (PLD 

1997 Lahore 499). We are not aware of any precedent where a different view has 

been taken. Therefore a law requiring compulsory service for liquidation of individual 

debts would inevitably by ultra-vires Article 11 of the Constitution. 

23. Moreover, while we have held that the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 

might not apply to tenants under the Sindh Tenancy Act in view of the special 

relationship between parties conferring interest in property created by latter statute it 

--- 95 ---

is evident that the moment that special relationship ceases to exist upon the 

termination of a tenancy, compulsion to work towards setting liabilities under a 

private debt would obviously reduce the status of a former tenant to that of a bonded 

labourer. As such the Act would be clearly applicable and not merely the obligation to 

work would be void but even the liabilities under the debt would stand extinguished. 

Therefore, we are entirely unable to uphold the inference drawn by the Honourable 

High Court from section 25(4) of the Sindh Tenancy Act. 

24. Being conscious of the obligation of a court to make effort to save the 

constitutionality of a statute and applying the rule of harmonious construction we are 

of the view that reading section 25 as a whole shows that a debt incurred by a tenant 

is to be settled through appropriation in the manner contemplated by subsections (1) 

to (3). Subsection (4) only contemplates that the outstanding balance becomes due 

and payable upon termination of the tenancy and could be recovered through normal 

legal channels. The words "before leaving" only signify that the financial liability of 

the tenant accrues before the termination actually comes into effect. Practically the 

only effect of tenancy under the Sindh Tenancy Act is that a tenant incurring a debt 

during the subsistence of tenancy in his favour continues to remain liable for the 

payment, whereas a bonded debt in terms of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) 

Act, 1992 is not recoverable at all. In either case however any obligation to work 

cannot be enforced. 

25. Finally learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Honourable High Court was 

required to examine each of the petitioners under Article 199 of the Constitution and 

section 491, Cr.P.C. after issuing rule-nisi for the production of the detenues, on 

merits and instead of dismissing them through an omnibus order on the grounds of 

existence of alternate remedies. It was contended that the alternate remedies 

suggested in para 36 (g) were neither adequate nor equally efficacious in the 

circumstances. Moreover, when appellants Kanji and Dongro had explicitly sought 

enforcement of their fundamental rights guaranteed, inter alia, under Articles 11 and 

15 of the Constitution, the High Court was the only appropriate forum to grant 

redress. Learned Additional Advocate-General, however, supporting the 

observations in the impugned judgment emphatically argued that in matters of private 

detention, as distinguished from detention by public authorities, a notice rather than a 

rule-nisi should issue because the latter is likely to cause harassment of citizens. 

Indeed this contention was seriously questioned by learned counsel for the appellant. 

26. We have carefully considered the contention raised and have examined the law on 

this aspect of the matter and are constrained to observe that the approach of the 

High Court was entirely erroneous. In the first instance, it ought to be kept in view 

that the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the High Court is borrowed from the English 

legal system upon which our legal system is founded as repeatedly observed by this 

Court, inter alia, in the full court judgment in the case of Government of West 

Pakistan and another v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 

14) and Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1975 SC 66). 

It is a settled principle of English Law, which has also been adopted by our Courts 

that the writ of habeas corpus, which is of ancient origin, as distinguished from other 

prerogative writs, is one of right and not mere discretion. It may be of interest to 

mention that the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 required penalization of a Judge 

refusing to issue a writ without proper grounds. R.J. Sharp in his book "The law of 

Habeas Corpus (Second Edition, 1989)" summed up the English law in the following 

words".- 

"In principle Habeas Corpus is not a discretionary remedy, it issues 

ex debito justitiae on proper grounds being shown.....Since Habeas 

--- 96 ---

Corpus is not a discretionary remedy the existence of alternate remdy 

does not afford grounds for refusing relief of habeas corpus ". 

27. In view of the above clear statement of law, the observation of Their Lordships in 

para-13 to the effect that directions under section 491, Cr.P.C. could only issue in a 

case of self explanatory allegations without seeking explanation from those charged 

with illegal detention are entirely unwarranted. This Court in the case of Muhammad 

Azim Malik v. A.C. & S. D. M. Preedy (South), Karachi and others reported in (PLD 

1989 SC 266) summarized the law relating to detention in the following words:ó 

"The duty is that of the Court, to satisfy itself with regard to the 

jurisdictional aspect and with regard to the lawfulness of the manner 

of detention. The law laid down by the Court further makes it clear 

that once the attention of the Court is properly drawn to a case of 

detention, the onus immediately shifts to the detaining authority to 

show the lawfulness of its authority in detaining the detenue. The 

duties are, therefore, specifically that of the Court and the detaining 

authority in the first instance and it is only incidentally that the relator 

or the applicant comes to the forefront in such a situation. These 

features distinguish all the cases relied upon by the learned counsel 

representing the . Federal Government on the questions on 

acquiescence in jurisdiction, estoppel, approbation and reprobation." 

28. From the above it is apparent that the petitions could not be dismissed on the ground 

that alternative remedies were available to persons held to be unlawfully detained. 

Nevertheless even if it be assumed otherwise learned counsel seems to be right in 

contending that such remedies could hardly be considered adequate or equally 

efficacious. Their Lordships have referred to section-100 Cr.P.C. and sections 341 

and 345, P.P.C. in this context. It needs to be kept in view that section-100 Cr.P.C. 

only relates to issuance of search warrants and does not confer any judicial power in 

the proper sense. It is merely an enabling provision for the enforcement of due 

process of law. Obviously such Magistrate has no authority to direct the release of 

the person unlawfully detained but could at best ensure his appearance before the 

competent court. Sections 341 to 345 P.PC. on the other hand stipulate punishment 

for persons found to have kept others under wrongful restraint or in wrongful 

confinement. They only provide that in case the respondents were found guilty of the 

offences they could be punished under the law after a proper trial. The persons 

confined nevertheless would continue to suffer unlawful detention. We are somewhat 

surprised how their lordships considered the aforesaid remedy as adequate for 

persons stated to be unlawfully deprived of liberty. It is well settled that refusal to 

exercise jurisdiction may be permissible only if the alternate remedy is adequate and 

equally efficacious. 

29. Learned Additional Advocate-General attempted to defend the distinction drawn by 

their lordships between private custody and public custody and supported the view 

that stricter scrutiny needs to be undertaken before issuing rule-nisi to private parties 

alleged to have wrongfully detained a person. We are afraid the distinction sought to 

be made does not appear to be premised on any legal principle. It cannot be 

overlooked that whereas the law confers powers upon public authorities to arrest and 

detain individuals under certain circumstances i.e..as under trial prisoners or under 

the laws enabling preventive detention, there appears to be no law authorizing a 

private individual to keep a person who is sui-juris in his private custody. This Court 

in the case of Abrar Hasan v. Federation of Pakistan and another reported in (PLD 

1976 SC 315) observed that even if a Judge of a superior Court were to illegally 

--- 97 ---

confine his domestic servant for misbehaviuor, a writ of habeas corpus would lie 

against him. 

Indeed there is a large number of cases relating to minors and women where the 

courts have declined to exercise jurisdiction under section 491, Cr.P.C. requiring the 

matter to be adjudicated in the fora established by law. Nevertheless invariably in all 

those cases the respondents have claimed a legal right to the custody of the person 

allegedly detained. The basis of distinction in our humble view is not that of a 

person's detention in public or private custody but the fact that the respondent has 

asserted a legal right to keep the person allegedly detained in his custody, and 

therefore the courts have rightly required that disputes as to such rights need to be 

adjudicated upon by the appropriate forum i.e. family courts. In the case at hand 

however it was evident that a landlord could not detain a tenant under any legal 

authority and as such the analogy was totally inapplicable. At this juncture we may 

observe that the observations of the Honourable High Court in the case of Imdad 

Hussain v. Noor Hassan and 5 others reported in (PLD 1974 Karachi 485) at page 

489 are contrary to the law declared by this Court and ought to be treated as per 

incuriam. 

30. There also seems to be force in the contention that the Honourable High Court was 

not justified in dismissing petitioners under Article-199 of the Constitution where 

enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed inter alia under Articles 11, 14 and 15 

was sought. In the above context it needs to be kept in view that apart from the 

jurisdiction vested in the High Courts by virtue of clauses (a) and (b) of Article 199(1) 

a special jurisdiction is conferred by clause (c) [which a High Court shares with the 

original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3)] in the following words:ó 

"On the application of any aggrieved person, make an order 

giving such directions to any person,or authority, including any 

Government exercising any power or performing any function in, or in 

relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of trial Court as may be 

appropriate for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights 

conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II." 

31. It needs to be explained that in matters pertaining to fundamental rights the 

jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than that available under clauses (a) and (b). In 

this context the true meaning of the expression "enforcement of fundamental rights" 

needs to be ascertained. For doing so a comparison of the provisions pertaining to 

fundamental rights in the Constitutions of US and Pakistan may be appropriate. For 

instance, the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution forbids slavery and forced 

labour but provides that the Congress has the power to enforce this Article through 

appropriate legislation. Similarly in the 14th Amendment section-1 requires that any 

State shall not deprive any person of life, liberty or property or equal protection of 

laws. Section-5 however requires that the Congress shall have the power to enforce 

by appropriate legislation. These provisions show that while State-action violating or 

ignoring provisions of the Constitution may be struck down by Courts exercising 

normal judicial power, the power to positively enforce the rights through appropriate 

sanctions could be exercised by the Congress alone. It is for this reason that the US 

Supreme Court was able to give effect to the 14th Amendment in respect of racial 

segregation in the absence of legislation, only through extending the concept of 

state-action to state-aided school etc. 

32. On the other hand, in the scheme of our Constitution, the power to enforce 

fundamental rights has been conferred upon the superior Courts through Articles 

199(1) (c) and 184(3). It may be seen that under Article 4 everybody has to be 

treated in accordance with the law and under Article-8 a law inconsistent with 

--- 98 ---

fundamental rights is to be treated as void. Therefore, even in the absence of clause 

(c) any action by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the 

Federation, a province or local authority, inconsistent with fundamental rights is to be 

declared without lawful authority under the clause (a) of Article 199. 

33. The reach of clause (c) however is wider. It not merely enables a court to declare an 

action of a State functionary inconsistent with fundamental rights to be unlawful but 

also directives as is evident enables the courts to practically enforce such rights by 

issuing appropriate directives as is evident from its language. Accordingly, this Court 

after having earlier held that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article-17 

included the right of a political party to contest elections as a collective entity was 

able to issue mandatory directives in the case of Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of 

Pakistan reported in (PLD 1989 SC 66) to the election authorities to amend the 

election rules to provide for the same under its powers to enforce fundamental rights 

under Article-184(3) of the Constitution. Moreover, such directives could be issued to 

any person including the Government. In the case of Peoples Union for Democratic 

Rights v. Union of India reported in (AIR 1982 SC 1473) it was held that though some 

of the fundamental rights imposed negative obligation on the part of the State not to 

encroach upon individual's liberty etc., there were others which were positively 

enforceable against the whole world. We are therefore clearly of the view that the 

High Court has plenary powers to positively enforce fundamental rights not merely 

against public authorities but even private parties. Accordingly direction for positive 

enforcement of fundamental rights against private parties could only be given by the 

High Court in respect of rights guaranteed, inter alia, by Articles 11, 22 etc. which 

might in most cases require enforcement against such parties. 

34. Another small point arising from the observations of the High Court in para-15 may 

also be dealt with. It seems that Their Lordships were also swayed by the 

consideration that there was no reliable evidence of physical imprisonment with the 

persons allegedly detained. In the above context we are of the view that the words 

detention or unlawful custody do not merely relate to physical confinement in a small 

place. In a number of cases decided by the Lahore High Court i.e. Rao Mahroz 

Akhtar v. The District Magistrate Dera Ghazi Khan and the Province of West 

Pakistan (PLD 1957 Lahore 676), (ii) Ch. Muhammad Anwar v. Government of West 

Pakistan (PLD 1963 Lahore 109), (iii) Begum Nazir Abdul Hameed v. Pakistan 

(Federal Government) through the Secretary, Interior Division Islamabad and another 

(PLD 1974 Lahore 7), and (iv) Major General (R.) Ghulam Jilani v. Federal 

Government (PLD 1975 Lahore 65) it was held that any restraint on the part of a 

person would be actionable under Article 199 of the Constitution. In the last case the 

petitioner was only restrained from leaving the municipal limits of Lahore without 

permission from certain authorities. Moreover in almost all cases where jurisdiction 

under 491 CrPc relating to custody of minor has been exercised there is rarely an 

allegation of confinement within particular four walls. We find no reason to take a 

different view and would hold that any form of restraint on liberty is actionable both 

under Article 199 of the Constitution and section 491, Cr.P.C. 

35. Our conclusion from the above somewhat lengthy discussion may be summarized as 

follows:ó 

(i) That the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 not merely 

ensures that no fetters on the workersí rights guaranteed under Articles 11, 

15 and 23 are placed, even through voluntary agreements but also wipes out 

any financial liability that the worker might have incurred on the basis 

whereof such fetters have been imposed: 

--- 99 ---

(ii) That the provisions of the aforesaid Act are also applicable to all 

persons employed in agriculture other than those enjoying rights as tenants 

under the Sindh Tenancy Act; 

(iii) That the above however does not mean that no credit could be 

advanced by an employer to his employee but only that a condition making 

the employee subject to the Bonded Labour System cannot be imposed. In 

cases of debts not accompanied by any condition which makes an employee 

a bonded worker under the Act, (they) may be enforceable through ordinary 

legal channels; 

(iv) That even the Sindh Tenancy Act does not empower a landlord to 

require a tenant to work on his lands against the latter's will. The only 

consequence provided for a refusal on the part of the tenant is forfeiture of 

his tenancy rights on grounds of abandonment etc. and through mechanism 

provided for in section 23 of the Act; 

(v) That even an undertaking by a tenant to work without remuneration 

or for remuneration less than the amount stipulated in section 22(2) would be 

unenforceable; 

(vi) Section 25 of the Sindh Tenancy Act stipulates a mechanism for 

appropriation of a debt from a tenant to his landlord. Subsection (4) only 

stipulates that upon termination of a tenancy the entire outstanding amount of 

the debt would be recoverable notwithstanding the provisions relating to 

appropriation through the normal legal channels; 

(vii) That in cases where wrongful detention or forced labour is 

complained of the onus to prove that the person detained was a tenant would 

lie on the landlord. The person detained would nevertheless invariably be 

entitled to restoration of his liberty and the freedom of his movement and the 

only difference would be that in the event of proof of his tenancy, the landlord 

would be entitled to recover the debt through normal legal channels. 

(viii) That in a petition under Article-199(1) (b) (i) of the Constitution or 

Section 491 Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that a person 

allegedly deprived of his liberty is detained under some authority of law. 

(ix) That there is no requirement of law that stricter scrutiny of a petition 

regarding detention in private custody is to be made before issuing 

appropriate directions. Nevertheless in cases where the right to keep a 

person in private custody is claimed on the basis of some authority in law, the 

court may require that such right be adjudicated upon in properly held 

proceedings before the appropriate forum before issuing directions under 

Section-491 Cr.P.C; and 

(x) The jurisdiction of superior courts to enforce fundamental rights 

under Article-199 (1) (c) of the Constitution is not merely exercisable against 

persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation 

or Province or a local authority but against any person or authority including a 

Government. Some of the fundamental rights by their very nature may be 

impaired by private persons and there is no embargo on the powers of the 

High Court to issue such direction as may be appropriate for enforcement of 

such rights. 

35. For the foregoing reasons we would allow these appeals and set aside the impugned 

order. Syed Iqbal Haider conceded before us that he has lost contact with appellants 

Kanji and Dongro. However, since the question of cherished rights of liberty of 

--- 100 ---

citizens is involved, we would direct the concerned district police officers to inquire 

whether the aforesaid persons are still in the custody of the respondents and if so, 

cause their production before the High Court Bench at Hyderabad. 

36. A copy of this judgment may be transmitted to the honourable Chief Justice of the 

High Court of Sindh so as to enable him to circulate amongst his colleagues and to 

the learned Sessions Judges in the Province (who are now empowered to exercise 

jurisdiction under section 491 Cr.P.C.) for appropriate guidance in matters of like 

nature arising in future. 

--- 101 --- 

Sd. Zia Perwez, J 

Sd. Sabihuddin Ahmed, J 

Sd. Sarmad Jalal Osmany, J

--- 102 ---

V 

Shariat Court upholds law on bonded labour 

� The impugned definitions in the law on bonded labour are not violative of Islamic 

injunctions. On the contrary, these are intended to achieve the lofty ideals put forth 

by Holy Quran and Sunnah of upholding the dignity of man in general and 

preservation/protection of the fundamental rights of the working class in particular. 

� The impugned sections of the Act of 1992 cannot be held repugnant to Islam as 

these provisions have been designed to achieve abolition of bonded labour in any 

form. 

--- 103 ---

--- 104 ---

PRESENT 

Judgment of Federal Shariat Court 

on Bonded Labour (2005) 

IN THE FEDERAL SHARIAT COURT 

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 

JUSTICE CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, CHIEF JUSTICE 

JUSTICE DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUDGE 

JUSTICE SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, JUDGE 

Shariat Petition No. 8/L of 1993. 

Syed Shabbir Hussain Kazmi and others -- Petitioners 

--- 105 --- 

Versus 

Govt. of Pakistan -- Respondent 

Counsel for petitioners -- Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, 

Advocate 


Haji Muhammad Amin etc. -- Petitioners 

The Secretary, Minister of Law, Govt. of 

Pakistan 

Versus 

-- Respondent 


Advocate 


Rana Saeed-uz-Zaman etc. -- Petitioners 

Versus 



Advocate 

Shariat Petition No. 37/L of 1992 

Ch. Niaz Ali and others -- Petitioners 

Versus 



Advocate 

Shariat Petition No. 58/1 of 1992. 

Ghulam Khan Bangash -- Petitioners 

Federation of Pakistan -- 

Versus 

Counsel for petitioner Mr. S. M. Ayub Bukhari, 

Advocate


Haji Muhammad Aslam etc. -- Petitioners 

--- 106 --- 

Versus 

Secretary, Ministry of Law, Govt. of Pakistan -- Respondent 


Advocate Malik Rab Nawaz 

Noon, Advocate 

Shariat Petition No. 7/L of 1993 

Mian Muhammad Akram etc. -- Petitioners 

Versus 

Secretary, Ministry of Law, Govt. of Pakistan -- Respondent 


Advocate 


Gulfraz Ahmad etc. -- Petitioners 

The Secretary, Ministry of Law, Federation of 

Pakistan 

Versus 

-- Respondent 


Advocate 

Counsel for Federal Govt. -- Sardar Abdul Majeed, 

Advocate 

Counsel for A.G. Balochistan -- Mr. Amin-ud-Din Brazo, Addl. 

A.G. Balochistan 

Mr. Muhammad Shuaib 

Abbasi, Advocate 

Counsel for A.G. Punjab -- Mr. Shafqat Munir Malik, 

Assistant Advocate General 

Counsel for A.G. Sindh. -- Mr. Muhammad Arshad Lodhi, 

A.A.G, 

Mr. Muhammad Shoaib 

Abbasi, Advocate 

Counsel for A.G. NWFP -- Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, 

Advocate 

Amicus-Curiae; -- Miss Asma Jahangir, Advocate 

Counsel for Pakistan Institute of Labour 

Education and Research 

-- Mr. Zafarullah Khan, Advocate 

Dates of hearings -- 2-11-2004, 

14-12-2004 

22-2-2005 

23-2-2005 

Date of decision -- 10-10-2005

JUDGEMENT 

SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, J.-. By this judgment we propose to dispose of the 

following eight matters as common questions of law and facts arise therein:- 

1. Shariat Petition No.36-Lof 1992 

(Rana Saeed-uz-Zaman etc. versus Govt. of Pakistan) 

2. Shariat Petition No. 37-L of 1992. 

(Niaz Ali and others versus Govt- of Pakistan) 

3. Shariat Petition No, 58-1 of 1992 

(Ghulam Khan Bangash Vs. Federation of Pakistan) 

4. Shariat Petition No. 6-L of 1993 

(Haji Muhammad Amin etc. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Law) 

5. Shariat Petition No. 7-1. of 1993 

(Mian M. Akram etc. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Law) 


(Syed Shabbir Hussain and others Vs. Govt. of Pakistan) 


(Gulfraz Ahmad etc. Vs. Secretary. Ministry of Law, Govt. of Pakistan) 


(Haji Muhammad Aslam etc. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Law) 

THE ISSUES 

2. Through the above Shariat Petitions, under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the 

Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioners who are brick-kiln owners, have assailed 

various provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 (hereinafter 

called : ' the Actî), as being repugnant to injunctions of Holy Quran and Sunnah. 

ìThat the definitions of the ëbonded debtí ëbonded labourí ëbonded labourerí and 

ìbonded labour systemî may kindly be declared as repugnant to the injunctions of 

Islam.î 

3. The impugned definitions are reproduced as under:- 

a) ìAdvance (peshgi)î means an advance (peshgi), whether in cash or in kind, or 

partly in cash or partly in kind, made by one person (hereinafter referred to as the 

creditor) to another person (hereinafter referred to as the debtor); 

b) ìBonded debtî means an advance (peshgi) obtained, or presumed to have been 

obtained, by a bonded labourer under, or in pursuance of, the bonded labour 

system. 

C) ìBonded labourî means any labour or service rendered under the bonded labour 

system; 

d) ìBonded labourerî means a labourer who incurs, or has, or is presumed to have, 

incurred, a bonded debt; 

e) ìBonded Iabour systemî means the system of forced, or partly forced, labour 

under which a debtor enters, or has or is presumed to have, entered into an 

agreement with the creditor to the effect that, -- 

in consideration of an advance (peshgi) obtained by him or by any of the 

members of his family [whether or not such advance (peshgi) is evidenced by 

--- 107 ---

any, document] and in consideration of the interest, if any, due on such advance 

(peshgi), or in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or 

for any economic consideration received by him or by any of the members 

of his family; 

he wouldó 

(1) render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person dependent 

on him, labour or service to the creditor, or for the benefits of the creditor, for a 

specified period or for an unspecified period, either without wages or for nominal 

wages, or 

(2) forfeit the freedom of employment or adopting other means of livelihood for a 

specified period or for an unspecified period or, 


(4) forfeit the right to appropriate or sell at market value any of his property or 

product or his labour or the labour of a member of his family or any person 

dependent on him, and includes the system of forced or partly forced, labour 

under which a surety for a debtor enters, or has or is presumed to have, entered, 

into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that in the event of the failure of 

the debtor to repay the debt, he would render the bonded labour on behalf of the 

debtor; 

4. Besides, in these Shariat Petitions, some of the provisions of ìthe Actî i.e. Sections 

5. 6, 7. 8 and 11 have also been brought under challenge as being contrary to the 

Islamic Injunctions. These sections read as under:- 

Section 5. Agreement custom, etc. To be void.ó 

(1) Any custom or tradition or practice or any contract, agreement or other instrument, 

whether entered into or executed before or after the commencement of this Act, by 

virtue of which any person, or any member of his family, is required to do any work or 

render any service as a bonded labourer, shall be void and inoperative. 

Section 6. Liability to repay bonded debt to stand extinguished. ó 

(1) On the commencement of this Act, every obligation of a bonded labourer to repay 

any bonded debt, or such part of any bonded debt as remains unsatisfied 

immediately before such commencement, shall stand extinguished. 

(2) After the commencement of this Act, no suit or other proceeding shall lie in any civil 

court, tribunal or before any other authority for the recovery of any bonded debt or 

any part thereof. 

(3) Every decree or order for the recovery of bonded debt, passed before the 

commencement of this Act and not fully satisfied before such commencement, shall 

be deemed, on such commencement, to have been fully satisfied. 

(4) Where, before the commencement of this Act, possession of any property belonging 

to a bonded labourer or a member of his family was forcibly taken by any creditor for 

the recovery of any bonded debt, such property shall be restored, within ninety days 

of such commencement, to the possession of the person from whom it was seized. 

(5) Every attachment made before the commencement of this Act for the recovery of any 

bonded debt shall on such commencement stand vacated: and. where, in pursuance 

of such attachment, any moveable property of the bonded labourer was seized and 

removed from his custody and kept in the custody of any court, tribunal or other 

--- 108 ---

authority pending sale thereof, such moveable property shall be restored, within 

ninety days of such commencement, to the possession of the bonded labourer: 

Provided that, where any attached property was sold before the commencement of 

this Act. in execution of a decree or order for the recovery of a bonded debt, such 

sale shall not be affected by any provision of this Act. 

(6) Subject to the proviso to subsection (5), any sale, transfer or assignment of any 

property of a bonded labourer made in any manner whatsoever before the 

commencement of this Act for recovery of bonded debt shall not be deemed to have 

created or transferred any right, or interest in or encumbrance upon any such 

property and such property shall be restored, within ninety days of such 

commencement, to the possession of the bonded labourer. 

(7) If restoration of the possession of any property referred to in subsection (4) or subsection 

(5) or sub-section (6) is not made within ninety days from the 

commencement of this Act, the aggrieved person may, within such time as may be 

prescribed, apply to the prescribed authority for the restoration of the possession of 

such property and the prescribed authority may. after giving the creditor a reasonable 

opportunity of being heard, direct the creditor to restore to the applicant the 

possession of the said property within such time as may be specified in the order. 

(8) An order made by any prescribed authority under sub-section (7) shall be deemed to 

be an order made by a Civil Court and may be executed by the Court of the lowest 

pecuniary jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the creditor 

voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. 

(9) Where any suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any obligation under the bonded 

Iabour system, including a suit or proceeding for the recovery of any advance (peshgi) 

made to a bonded labourer, is pending at the commencement of this Act, such suit or 

other proceeding shall on such commencement, stand dismissed. 

(10) On the commencement of this Act, every bonded labourer who has been detained in 

civil prison, whether before or after judgment, shall be released from detention 

forthwith. 

Section 7. Property of bonded labourer to be freed from mortgage, etc. -- 

(1) All property vested in a bonded labourer, which was immediately before the 

commencement of this Act. under any mortgage, charge, lien or other encumbrance 

in connection with any bonded debt shall, in so far as it is relatable to the bonded 

debt, stand freed and discharges from such mortgage, charge, lien or other encumbrance; 

and where any such property was. immediately before the commencement 

of this Act. in the possession of mortgagee or the holder of the charge, lien or 

encumbrance, such property shall, except where it was subject to any other charge, 

on such commencement, be restored to the possession of the bonded labourer. 

(2) If any delay is made in restoring any property referred to in subsection (1) to the 

possession of the bonded labourer, such labourer shall be entitled, on and from the 

date of such commencement, to recover from the mortgagee or holder of the lien, 

charge or encumbrance, such mesne profits as may be determined by the civil court 

of the lowers pecuniary jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such 

property is situated. 

Section 8. Creditor not to accept payment against extinguished debt. ó 

(1) No creditor shall accept any payment against any bonded debt which has been 

extinguished or deemed to have been extinguished or fully satisfied by virtue of the 

provisions of this Act. 

--- 109 ---

(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1), shall be punishable with 

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not 

be less then fifteen thousand rupees, or with both. 

(3) The Court convicting any person under sub-section (2) may, in addition to the 

penalties which may be imposed under that subsection, direct such person to deposit 

in Court, the amount accepted in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1). 

within such period as may be specified in the order, for being refunded to the bonded 

labourer. 

THE FACTS 

Whoever, after the commencement of this Act compels any person to render any 

bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be 

less than two years nor more than five years, or with fine which shall not be less than 

fifty thousand rupees, or with both. 

5. The facts, in brief, necessary to understand (he genesis of these cases are as 

follows: Two complaints, one by the labourers and the other by the owners of some 

brick-kilns, moved before Supreme Court of Pakistan, were taken up for adjudication 

by it in exercise of its powers under Article 184 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic 

of Pakistan. The complaint made by the labourers was that the owners were pressing 

them to work at their brick-kilns against Peshgis (advances) and on their refusal they 

were being maltreated. On the other hand the grievance of the brick-kiln owners was 

that the labourers, after having received substantial amounts in advance with the 

undertaking to work at their respective brick-kilns, had ceased to do so causing 

immense loss to them. 

All concerned were heard at considerable length by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, a 

broad agreement was reached, leading to the following interim order dated 17-9- 

1988:- 

(i) Peshgi system to be discontinued forthwith except that up-to one weekís 

estimated wages may be paid by the owner to the worker as advance against 

proper receipt. 

(ii) The payment shall be made to the worker concerned or the head of the 

household, direct in cash. The receipt shall be issued in duplicate-one to be 

retained by each. 

(iii) The institution of ìJamadarî is finished and he is excluded for all times. No 

payment for others shall be made to him nor shall it be acknowledged in any 

forum, as due in any form, if claimed to have been made through him. 

(iv) The institution of ìJamardarniî is likewise finished altogether. 

(v) Every case registered anywhere in Punjab by the police, which deals with, 

directly or indirectly, any of the constituents of the practice of bonded labour 

in the brick-kiln industry, shall be reported to the Advocate-General, with a 

copy of the FIR within 24 hours. The Advocate-General shall submit a 

photocopy of the FIR and other documents, if any. with his own comments, 

within further 24 hours, to the Supreme Court. 

(vi) Past Peshgis for the time being shall not be treated as void and 

unrecoverable. However, they shall not at all be recovered in any form 

through police or through the employment of the so called ìlabourî under the 

peshgi recovery arrangementî or through any coercive measure; and further 

orders shall be made by the court in this behalf including the request for 

--- 110 ---

utilization of the Zakat fund for the discharge of so called bad debts of Peshgi. 

The question, whether recoveries would be abolished altogether and whether 

legislation shall be made on the lines as done in India, is deferred for the time 

being, for six months. This aspect shall be reviewed in the light of the working 

of these arrangements to which all concerned have agreed if approved by 

court. 

(vii) Filing of habeas corpus petitions shall not be stopped. However, all 

concerned have agreed that if the arrangements agreed upon or put into 

practice the need for filling false/ genuine habeas corpus petitions would not 

arise. The Advocate General shall however, appear personally in every 

habeas corpus petition whether in the High Court or in the Supreme Court. 

(viii) The owners shall not directly ask or pressurize any labourer for employing 

the womenfolk or children. However if the latter do so at their own risk and 

responsibility, no complaint shall then be made against the bhatta owners in 

this behalf. The head of the household who employs any of their women folk 

against her wishes and or children, might in proper cases, be proceeded 

against. The payment made to the head of the household including that of his 

family members male, female, shall be in the name of the head of the 

household. Separate recipients may not be mentioned in the formal registers 

and receipts. 

(ix) No deduction whatsoever shall be made from wages; nor the number of 

bricks, if they are more than 1000 shall be counted as 1000 in any garb. The 

damage/loss to the bricks suffered on account of rain shall be wholly borne 

by the owner. Similarly, no other deduction including that of past peshgi, 

loans including those for marriages or for medical treatment etc, shall be 

made from the wages. 

(x) Payment made by the owner to the labourer in addition to the wages whether 

in the form of formal loan or otherwise for marriages and other ceremonies or 

for medicines or other purposes shall not be recoverable from [he labourer. If 

genuinely paid/spent they shall be treated as for goodwill or donation, 

(xi) Other arrangements that may be specified at the final stage in the final 

Judgment. 

6. The matter was disposed of on 15--3-I989 with the following salient direction:- 

(i) Past unreturned peshgis (advances) given to the labourers would be treated 

outstanding against them. 

(ii) Peshgi system in future would be discontinued. 

(iii) In future payment of wages would be made to the labourers on daily, weekly, 

fortnightly and monthly basis as agreed upon between the parties. 

(iv) Jamadari system is to cease forthwith. 

(v) The owners shall not be directly or indirectly ask or pressurize any labourer 

for employing womenfolk or children. 

This judgment is reported as ìin The Matter of Enforcement of Fundamental 

rights Re: Bonded Labour In Brick-kiln Industryî (PLJ 1989 S.C. 562). 

DARSHAN MASIH CASE 

In 1989 another case pertaining to brick-kiln industry qua dispute between labourers and the 

brick-kiln owners came up before Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled ìDarshan Masih 

alias Rehmatay and others versus The Stateî. Their Lordship took great pains in resolving it. 

--- 111 ---

The hearing of the case went on for considerable period. Certain suggestions / 

recommendations were made by different Committees constituted by the court. This case 

was decided on 15-3-1989 with the directions, interalia, that the important elements in the 

Fundamental Rights regarding prohibition of forced labour, dignity of man, freedom of 

movement, freedom of trade, business or profession etc, should be put in consolidated form. 

It was observed that ìit might be necessary to define the expression ìforced labourî with 

illustrations of its different forms; in such a manner, so as to minimize any confusion about its 

real purport as also the resultant unproductive litigation. For the same purpose the other 

important elements in these Fundamental Rights may be collected together and put in a selfcontained 

Code. It might cover all aspects of human dignity. deprivations and misery, 

including those rights in this behalf which are ensured, in addition, as basic human rights in 

Islam.------ This comprehensive law should deal with the compulsory education of the 

classes concerned for making them aware of their rights, the detection of the infringement 

thereof as the duty of the State; and providing remedial mechanism also at the instance of 

the state whenever the will to assert or exercise them is lacking on the part of a 

citizenî.......( Pages 545. 546 of the reportó (PLD 1990 S.C.513). 

The matter was ultimately disposed of in terms of the order dated 15-3-1989 (reproduced 

herein above in para 6 ibid). Thus the Peshgi system and Jamadari system were done away 

with for all times to come by Honíble Supreme Court. 

7. Pursuant to the above two landmark judgments of the apex court of the country, the 

legislature passed the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992, some of the 

provisions whereof (noted in para 4 ibid) have now been brought under challenge by 

the brick-kiln owners through these Shariat petitions. 

8. It is manifest that the above two judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, even if 

not equated with a ìjudgment in rein,î are authoritative on account of their 

constitutional status and as such conclusive of the matters / issues adjudicated upon. 

We closely questioned learned counsel for the petitioners, in all these petitions, to 

demonstrate, if possible, that the impugned provisions of ìthe Actî were violative of 

the directions / guidelines given by Supreme Court in the above judgments. He failed 

to do so. We are fully satisfied that ìthe Actî was passed by the legislature strictly in 

line with directives of the Supreme Court. By purporting to challenge the vires of the 

impugned provisions of ìthe Actî what the petitioners really seek is the effacement of 

the binding effect of the two judgments, which is not permissible in law. 

The judgments of Supreme Court declaring the law on the subject cannot be called in 

question by a person or by batch of persons though he / they might not be party to 

the judgement. We may refer with some advantage lo two decisions from Indian 

jurisdiction i.e. M/s Shenoy and Co.. Bangalore and others versus Commercial Tax 

Officer, Circle, II. Bangalore and othersî [AIR 1985 Supreme Court 621) and ìM/s 

Star- Diamond Co. India versus Union of India and othersî (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 

1 79], wherein it was held that Supreme Court decision was binding on all persons 

though they were not party before Supreme Court. 

Even an obiter in a judgment by Supreme Court carries binding effect. See ìNational 

Bank of Pakistan versus Banking Tribunal and othersî (PLD 1994 Karachi 358 at 362 

and ìM. Z. Khan versus Aziz-ud-Dinî (2004 YLR.84). 

9. In our view ìthe Actî, as a whole, is a beneficial statutory dispensation of vita! 

importance as it is intended to curb and put to irreversible end the reprehensible 

institution of bonded labour not only in the brick-kiln industry but also in others 

sectors in the country like haris tenants-al-will, labourers in mining industry, glass 

bangle industry, tanneries etc. 

--- 112 ---

10. Mr. Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to submit that the 

above judgments were delivered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under article 184 

of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to ensure that the fundamental 

rights of the parties to the dispute i.e. brick-kilns owners on the one hand and the 

labourers working in the said brick-kilns on the other were protected and their denial / 

violation was checked. The main thrust of his argument was that the Supreme Court 

did not consider the matter in the light of Islamic injunctions on the subject and as 

such the petitioners were within their rights to assail the relevant provisions of ìthe 

Actî i.e. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. 1992 as being violative of Holy 

Quran and Sunnah. 

11. While arguing on merits of these petitions, Mr. Irshad Ahmed Qureshi, learned 

counsel for the petitioners, tried to demonstrate that the Peshgi system, prevalent in 

the brick-kilns, was not against the injunctions of Islam. According to him, the 

labourers used to perform their duties pursuant to lawful agreements between the 

parties, which stood sanctified by Injunctions of Islam. In this view of the matter the 

impugned provisions of ìthe Actî regarding abolition of Peshgi system and branding 

the labourers working in the brick-kilns as ìbonded labourî were liable to be declared 

as contrary to mandate of Holy Quran and Sunnah. 

In support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon the following Verse from 

the Holy Quran:- 

0. ye who believe, fulfill you undertakings. (5:1) 

Besides. learned counsel also relied upon the following Hadith of the Holy Prophet 

(peace be upon him). 

He who is devoid of honesty does not posses faith and there is no 

Deen for one who does not fulfill his contract (promise). 

It was argued that the Peshgi amounts were being given to the workers in the brickkiln 

under valid and lawful agreements and, therefore, there was no justification 

available in law for Legislature to abolish the Peshgi system vide section 4 of ìthe 

Actî. ìJamadari Systemî was also necessary to be kept alive so as to enable the 

brick kiln owners to keep watch over the performance of the workers with regard to 

the job of brick making entrusted to them. 

12. On the other hand both learned Standing counsel for the Federal Government and 

Miss Asma Jahangir Advocate, learned amicus curiae vehemently opposed these 

petitions both on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits. 

THE RIGHTS 

13. A perusal of the judgments of the Supreme Court supra would show that these 

indeed protected/upheld the following fundamental rights of the labourers:- 

(i) Security of life or liberty of a person óArticle 9. 

(ii) Safeguard as to arrest and detention ó Article 10. 

(iii) Prohibition of all forms of forced labouró Article 11. 

--- 113 ---

(iv) Upholding of inviolability of dignity of manóArticle 14. 

(v) Guarantee of freedom of movementóArticle 15. 

(vi) Freedom of trade, business or profession.ó-Article 18. 

14. On 10 th June 1930 the General Conference of the International Labour Organization 

convened a conference at Geneva and adopted certain proposals to take the form of 

International Convention about Forced or Compulsory Labour. Pakistan ratified this 

convention known as ì29th Forced Labour convention, 1930î on 2.3-12-1957. 

Two Articles of this convention are relevant in the context of the controversy 

involved in these cases. These are reproduced as under:- 

ìArticle 4, 

1. The competent authority shall not impose or permit the imposition of forced 

or compulsory labour for the benefit of private individuals, companies or associations. 

2. Where such forced or compulsory labour for the benefit of private individuals, 

companies or associations exists at the date on which a Member's ratification of this 

Convention is registered by the Director-General of the International Labour Office, 

the Member shall completely suppress such forced or compulsory labour from the 

date on which this convention comes into force for that Member. 

Article 5. 

No concession granted to private individuals, companies or associations shall involve 

any form of forced or compulsory labour for the production or the collection of 

products which such private individuals, companies or associations utilize or in which 

they trade. 

15. Some of the human rights and freedoms were compendiously recounted in the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was proclaimed by United Nations on 

10th December 1948. It sought to uphold the following rights of human beings:- 

Article 3 Every one has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 

Article 4 No one shall be held for slavery or for servitude. 

Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading 

treatment. 

The emphasis of the above Charter of the United Nations was largely due to the 

abuse of power of which totalitarian regimes before the second world war were guilty. 

It was intended to enable the individual to claim that he was a free person and 

entitled to secure his free development as such. The right to work, the right to a fair 

wage or leisure lo which a labourer could lay claim were declared lo be inviolable. 

16. As against the above, significantly. Islam had fifteen centuries ago etched out in 

detail the fundamental rights of the mankind by unequivocal commandments. In the 

context of the controversy involved in these Shariat petitions, we shall refer to the 

rights of the labourers / workers only, in the sequel. 

17. To begin with, there is Hadith of Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) for discharging 

the financial obligations. 

Pay every rightful claimant his dues 

--- 114 ---

The Holy Quran, in relation to the labour of Prophet Moses at Prophet Shoaib's 

house, has succinctly discussed an event. The Prophet Shoaib said :- 

And 1 do not wish to put you to unnecessarily hard labour. By the 

grace of God. you will find me straightforward in these Matters.(28:27) 

The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) whenever he spoke of the master-worker 

relationship, used to say: 

ìThose who work for you are your brothers: God has ordained them 

to be your subordinates.î 

18. In Islam a workman is not entitled 10 anything until his work be finished. The Jurists 

have explained this issue by giving an example of brick maker. Al Murghinani has 

said:- 

ìIf a person hires another to make him certain quantity of bricks. 

According to Imam Abu Haneefa he is entitled to his hire when he 

sets up the bricks. The two disciples held that he is not entitled to his 

hire until he collects the brick together and build them up because it is 

this which completes his work, since bricks are not secured from 

injury until they be so collected and built upî 

19. Forced labour is repugnant to Islam in the extreme. The Holy Prophet (peace be 

upon him) has mentioned this in one of his Ahadith:- 

ήϴΟϻ΍ ήΟ΍ ϊϨϣ Ϧϣ ϢΛ΍ ΏΎΑ ˬ٪έΎΟϻ΍ ΏΎΘ̯ ˬ΢ϴΤμϟ΍ 

--- 115 --- 

̵έΎΨΑ 

ìAllah said. I will been opponent to three types of people on the Day 

of Resurrection:- 

1. One who makes a covenant in My Name, but proves treacherous;

2. One who sells a free person and eats his price ; and 

3. One who employs a labourer and takes full work from him but does 

not pay him for his labourî 

--- 116 --- 

(The underlining is ours). 

This important Hadith was expounded by Allama Ibn-al-Hajar Asqualani as follows: 

ìBy taking work from someone without payment to him his legitimate 

wages is equivalent to pressing a free man into slavery and to 

produce goods from his labours, since, when he has reaped the 

benefits without offering compensation, he has purchased the 

labourer and in effect has regarded him as a slave whom he has 

purchased. 

20. How much regard the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) had for the rights of the 

workers is conveyed by probably his last Hadith shortly before he left this world and 

met his Creator. His words, according to Hazrat Ali. were; 

(Always keep prayers in your mind and the right of the people Who 

are you dependents). 

There is another Hadith worth quoting:- 

ìReported by Abi-Zar from the Holy Prophet to have been said that; 

These (servants) are actually your brothers. Allah almighty has only 

extended your authority over them and subjected them to work under 

your command (if the situation is that), you should provide the same 

food which you yourself eat and provide the same clothes which you 

yourself wear and never overburden them by compelling to do a work 

beyond their capacity if you entrust such type of work to them, then 

personally assist them in doing that job. (Sunan Al-Jamia Tirmizi 

chapter 29 Hadees No. 1945 Publication. Egypt.

21. Even if the worker does not claim his rights, according to Islam the owner should be 

alive to his rights and cognizant of his full responsibility; he should fulfill his 

obligations, failing which he shall be held answerable before God on the day of 

Judgment: 

22. Naturally, the proprietor or the owner would like to extract as much work as possible 

from the servant or worker. But Islam aims at expelling this idea out of his mind. Says 

the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him):- 

ìThose who do wrong with their servants cannot enter paradise.î 

ìWhen a person fulfilled rights of Allah and rights of his servants he 

got two rewards'ì. 

23. Islam has called exploitation of worker the gravest possible violation of human rights 

and decency; it has also laid down guidelines for prevention thereof. It cannot 

tolerate his exploitation, in any from, for a single moment. The Holy Prophet (peace 

be upon him) said:- 

ìThe rich commits crime by defraying paymentî 

24. Thus Islam has formulated a social system based on the fundamental human 

rights and the relationship between the owner and the worker is comprehensively 

covered by it. This system favours neither the emergence of a capitalist class nor of 

technocrat class or bureaucracy but of an egalitarian system in which the rule of law 

prevails. 

25. It is necessary at this stage to deal with the contention of the learned counsel for the 

petitioner that the workers employed in brick-kiln performed their duties under 

contract with the owners. This was with reference to the practice of payment of 

advance amount to them by way of Peshgi. This contention is wholly without force. 

26. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) has said:- 

--- 117 ---

ìA man shall honour his contracts together with all the binding 

conditions provided that the conditions are rightful and according to 

the code of Islam. 

27. Islam has taken great care to ensure that worker is not duped/lured into performance 

of contract which is fraudulent / unconscionable / vague. Such a course of action 

leads to exploitation of the workers as the employer by handing over certain amount 

to the worker obtains assurance from him that he would continue to work till such 

time that the services rendered by him do not offset / liquidate the liability of said 

amount. 

It is common knowledge that almost all the workers in the brick-kiln are illiterate; no 

deed is drawn specifying the terms and conditions of the contract with the result that 

the worker engaged at the brick-kiln is kept groping in dark, all the time, as to when 

he would be treated to have discharged the liability qua the advance amount. After 

extracting sufficient work from him, if and when the worker approaches the employer 

for settlement of account, he is usually confronted with the reply that he had yet to 

complete the job entrusted to him. In the meantime, the advance amount having 

been utilized by the worker, the employer conveniently hands over further amount to 

him so as to keep him engaged at his brick-kiln. This process goes on ad-infinitem. 

There cannot be worse form of exploitative bondage of labour. The advance (Peshgi) 

is a tool of intimidation to extract surplus work without payment of wages therefor. 

28. Islam is the greatest emancipator of mankind and zealously upholds the dignity of 

worker in particular. Perusal of the Ayats of Holy Quran and the Ahadiths of Prophet 

(peace be upon him), quoted above, would prove that exploitation of down-trodden 

and toiling labourer is strictly forbidden so that he is saved from eking out his 

livelihood in abject servitude. We are absolutely clear lin our mind that the Peshgi 

system being vague and unconscionable, besides being exploitative in nature, is 

violative of the Injunctions of Islam. 

29. It would not be out of place to humbly cite two important Ahadiths of the Holy Prophet 

(peace be upon him), on the subject. 

ìPay the worker his wages before his sweat dries.î 

(Baihaqi,Vol.6)Page-121), Mishkat. Bab-al-Ijara, Page-45. 

According to Hazrat Abu Said Khudri, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) had 

interdicted the employment of a labourer without prior fixation of his wages (Baihaqi 

Al-Sunan al Kubra, Vol. 6, 

ìThe Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited hiring of a person 

until his wages were fixedî 

--- 118 ---

Two beneficent conclusions, of far reaching effect, are deducible from these Ahadiths. 

It is postulated that the nature and extent of the job entrusted to workers should be 

well defined at the time of the contract. The worker, on the completion of the job, is to 

be paid his wages without any delay whatsoever. Thus only piece-rate work can be 

entrusted to the worker in the brick-kiln industry i.e. specific number of bricks to be 

prepared in lieu of mutually agreed amount as his wages. 

30. For what has been said above we are clearly of the view that the impugned 

definitions in ìthe Actî are not violative of Islamic injunctions on the subject. On the 

contrary, these are intended to achieve the lofty ideals put forth by Holy Quran and 

Sunnah of upholding the dignity of man in general and preservation / protection of 

the fundamental rights of working class in the society in particular. 

Likewise the impugned sections 5. 6, 7, 8 and 11 of ìthe Actî cannot be held to be 

repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, in the light of what has been stated above as 

these provisions have been incorporated therein with the object of a abolation of 

bonded labour in all its forms and manifestations. 

OBJECTIVE NOT ACHIEVED 

31. Before parting with the judgment, we are constrained to observe with concern that 

the object for which ìthe Actî was passed could not be achieved so far. Almost every 

day reports about unlawful detention of labourers, working in different brick-kilns 

along with their family members, for extracting forced labour from them, appear in the 

national press. 

In Daily ìNawa-e-Waqtî Lahore, dated 2-9-2005 there was a report about order 

passed by Lahore High Court whereunder twenty labourers were set at liberty after 

their recovery from the unlawful custody of the brick-kiln owner for extracting forced 

labour. In the same national daily dated 10th September 2005 there was another 

report about twentysix brick-kiln workers, who were recovered from a brick-kiln near 

Gujranwala Bypass, through bailiff of the court and set at liberty by the Lahore High 

Court. Similar news about release of 17 bonded brick-kiln labourers under the order 

of Sessions Judge, Peshawar appeared in daily ìDawnî dated 8th October, 2005. 

32. Perusal of ìthe Actî would show that under section 9 the Provincial Government had 

been conferred powers to impose such duties on a District Magistrate (now District 

Nazim), as may be necessary, to ensure that the provisions of ìthe Actî are properly 

enforced. 

Likewise, under section 10 the District Magistrate/District Nazim and the officer 

designated by him have been held responsible for promotion of the welfare of the 

freed bonded labourer by securing and protecting his economic interests. 

Section 15 provides for constitution of Vigilance Committees at district level 

comprising of elected representatives of the area. representatives of the district 

ddministration, Bar associations. press, recognized social services and Labour 

Departments of the federal and Provincial Governments. 

It is unfortunate that so far no specified authority, (vide section 9) in any district in 

Pakistan has taken care to exercise its powers so as to alleviate the misery and 

torture being inflicted upon the brick-kiln labourers by many owners, in their 

respective jurisdictions. Likewise, no vigilance committees have been formed 

anywhere in the country. This state of affairs is alarming, to say the least. It has 

immensely distressed us. 

It is for the Government functionaries to ensure the due and purposeful enforcement 

of ìthe Actî, in its letter and spirit, so that (he menace of forced labour, rampant in 

--- 119 ---

ick-kilns, and other similar establishments, all over the country, is checked and 

comprehensively exterminated. 

33. It will not be out of place to mention, at this stage, that a brick-kiln squarely falls 

within the purview of ìfactoryî vide section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1934. Industrial 

Relations Ordinance 1969 and West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance. 1968 

are also attracted to such establishment. It is high time that all the brick-kilns are duly 

registered as factories to enable the labour Inspector to pay regular visits to them 

and take suitable action / measures, in accordance with the labour laws, to achieve 

the objective of banishment of practice of forced labour from this industry. 

34. As late as in 2004 Bonded Labours. Research Forum, in collaboration with the 

Ministry of Labour. Man power and Overseas Pakistanis. Government of Pakistan 

and I.L.O carried out assessment / study of bonded labour qua different sectors of 

life in Pakistan, inter alia, the brick-kilns. Dr. Ali Ercelawn of Pakistan Institute of 

Labour and Research Forum did a commendable job in preparing a paper after 

thorough study of the problem suggesting ways and means of curbing the pernicious 

practice of bonded labour in brick-kilns and other similar segments of society. No 

action, so far, seems to have been to taken on this report either. The statutory 

functionaries must realize their responsibility of enforcement of the mechanism as 

provided by ìthe Actî i.e. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 and see to it 

that the desired results are achieved. 

35. We direct that a copy of this Judgment be forwarded to (i). Ministry of Law, Justice 

and Parliamentary Affairs; (ii). Ministry of Labour. Manpower and Overseas 

Pakistanis, Government of Pakistan, as well as to all the provincial governments in 

the country. 

36. With the above observations / directions, these petitions are dismissed as being not 

maintainable as well as on merit. 

(Ch. Ejaz Yousaf) 

Chief Justice 

(Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh) 

Judge 

--- 120 --- 

(Dr. Fida Muahmmad Khan) 

Judge

Appendices 

The legal framework 

--- 121 ---

--- 122 ---

ACT III OF 1992 

BONDED LABOUR SYSTEM (ABOLITION) ACT, 1992 

--- 123 --- 

Appendix A 

Ah Act to provide for abolition of bonded labour system Gazetted on 17 th March 1992 

Whereas clause (2) of Article 11 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 

Pakistan prohibits all forms of forced labour; And whereas it is necessary to provide for 

abolition of bonded labour system with a view to preventing the economic and physical 

exploitation of the labour class in the country and for matters connected therewith or 

incidental thereto; 

It is hereby enacted as follows: - 

1. Short title, extent and commencement. 

2. Definitions. 

(1) This Act may be called the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992. 

(2) It extends to the whole of Pakistan. 

(3) It shall come into force at once. 

In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, - 

(a) "advance (peshgi): means an advance (peshgi), whether in cash or in kind, or 

partly in cash or partly in kind, made by one person (hereinafter referred to as the 

creditor) to another person (hereinafter referred to as the debtor); 

(b) "bonded debt" means an advance (peshgi) obtained, or presumed to have been 

obtained, by a bonded labourer under, or in pursuance of, the bonded labour 

system; 

(c) "bonded labour" means any labour or service rendered under the bonded labour 

system; 

(d) "bonded labourer" means a labourer who incurs, or has, or is presumed to have, 

incurred, a bonded debt; 

(e) "bonded labour system" means the system of forced, or partly forced, labour 

under which a debtor enters, or has, or is presumed to have, entered into an 

agreement with the creditor to the effect that, - 

(i) in consideration of an advance {peshgi) obtained by him or by any of the 

members of his family [whether or not such advance (peshgi) is evidenced by 

any document] and in consideration of the interest, if any, due on such 

advance (peshgi), or 

(ii) in pursuance of any customary or social obligation, or 

(iii) for any economic consideration received by him, or by any of the members of 

his family; 

he would 

(1) render, by himself or through any member of his family, or any person 

dependent on him, labour or service to the creditor, or for the benefit of the 

creditor, for a specified period or for an unspecified period, either without 

wages or for nominal wages, or

(2) forfeit the freedom of employment or adopting other means of livelihood for a 

specified period or for an unspecified period, or 


(4) forfeit the right to appropriate or sell at market value any of his property or 

product of his labour or the labour of a member of his family or any person 

dependent on him, and includes the system of forced, or partly forced, labour 

under which a surety for a debtor enters, or has or is presumed to have, 

entered, into an agreement with the creditor to the effect that, in the event of 

the failure of the debtor to repay the debt, he would render bonded labour on 

behalf of the debtor; 

(f) "family" means, ó 

(i) in the case of a male bonded labourer, the wife or wives, and in the case of a 

female bonded labourer, the husband of the bonded labourer; and 

(ii) the parents, children, minor brothers, and unmarried, divorced or widowed 

sisters of the bonded labourer wholly dependent on him; 

(c) - "nominal wages", in relation to any labour, means a wage which is less 

than,-- 

(a) the minimum wages fixed by the Government, in relation to the same or 

similar labour under any law for the time being in force; and 

(b) where no such minimum wage has been fixed in relation to any form of 

labour, the wages that are normally paid, for the same or similar labour, to 

the labourers working in the same locality; and 

(h) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act. 

(3) Act to override other laws, etc. 

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any 

other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such 

law. 

(4) Abolition of bonded labour system. 

(1) On the commencement of this Act, the bonded labour system shall stand 

abolished and every bonded labourer shall stand freed and discharged from any obligation to 

render any bonded labour. 

(2) No person shall make any advance under, or in pursuance of, the bonded labour 

system or compel any person to render any bonded labour or other form of forced labour. 

(5) Agreement, custom, etc., to be void 

Any custom or tradition or practice or any contract, agreement or other instrument, 

whether entered into or executed before or after the commencement of this Act, by virtue of 

which any person, or any member of his family, is required to do any work or render any 

service as a bonded labourer, shall be void and inoperative. 

(6) Liability to repay bonded debt to stand extinguished. 

(1) On the commencement of this Act, every obligation of a bonded labourer to repay any 

bonded debt, or such part of any bonded debt as remains unsatisfied immediately before 

such commencement, shall stand extinguished. 

--- 124 ---

(2) After the commencement of this Act, no suit or other proceeding shall lie in any Civil 

Court, tribunal or before any other authority for the recovery of any bonded debt or any 

part thereof. 

(3) Every decree or order for the recovery of bonded debt, passed before the 

commencement of this Act and not fully satisfied before such commencement, shall be 

deemed, on such commencement, to have been fully satisfied.. 

(4) Where, before the commencement of this Act, possession of any property belonging to a 

bonded labourer or a member of his family was forcibly taken by any creditor for the 

recovery of any bonded debt, such property shall be restored, within ninety days of such 

commencement, to the possession of the person from whom it was seized. 

(5) Every attachment made before the commencement of this Act for the recovery of any 

bonded debt shall, on such commencement, stand vacated; and where, in pursuance of 

such attachment, any movable property of the bonded labourer was seized and removed 

from his custody and kept in the custody of any court, tribunal or other authority pending 

sale thereof, such movable property shall be restored, within ninety days of such 

commencement, to the possession of the bonded labourer: 

Provided that, where any attached property was sold before the commencement of this Act, 

in execution of a decree or order for the recovery of a bonded debt, such sale shall not 

be affected by any provision of this Act. 

(6) Subject to the proviso to subsection (5), any sale, transfer or assignment of any property 

of a bonded labourer made in any manner whatsoever before the commencement of this 

Act for recovery of bonded debt shall not be deemed to have created or transferred any 

right, or interest in or encumbrance upon any such property and such property shall be 

restored, within ninety days of such commencement, to the possession of the bonded 

labourer. 

(7) If restoration of the possession of any property referred to in subsection (4) or subsection 

(5) or subsection (6) is not made within ninety days from the commencement of this Act, 

the aggrieved person may, within such time as may be prescribed, apply to the 

prescribed authority for the restoration of the possession of such property and the 

prescribed authority may, after giving the creditor a reasonable opportunity of being 

heard, direct the creditor to restore to the applicant the possession of the said property 

within such time as may be specified in the order. 

(8) An order made by any prescribed authority under subsection (7) shall be deemed to be 

an order made by a civil court and may be executed by the court of the lowest pecuniary 

jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the creditor voluntarily resides or 

carries on business or personally works for gain. 

(9) Where any suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any obligation under the bonded 

labour system, including a suit or proceeding for the recovery of any advance (peshgi) 

made to a bonded labourer, is pending at the commencement of this Act, such suit or 

other proceeding shall, on such commencement, stand dismissed. 

(10) On the commencement of this Act, every bonded labourer who has been detained in 

civil prison, whether before or after judgment, shall be released from detention forthwith. 

7. Property of bonded labour to be freed from mortgage etc. 

(1) All property vested in a bonded labourer which was, immediately before the 

commencement of this Act, under any mortgage, charge, lien or other encumbrance in 

connection with any bonded debt shall, in so far as it is relatable to the bonded debt, 

stand freed and discharged from such mortgage, charge, lien or other encumbrance; and 

--- 125 ---

where any such property was, immediately before the commencement of this Act, in the 

possession of the mortgagee or the holder of the charge, lien or encumbrance, such 

property shall, except where it was subject to any other charge, on such commencement, 

be restored to the possession of the bonded labourer. 

(2) If any delay is made in restoring any property referred to in subsection (1) to the 

possession of the bonded labourer, such labourer shall be entitled, on and from the date 

of such commencement, to recover from the mortgagee or holder of the lien, charge or 

encumbrance, such mesne profits as may be determined by the civil court of the lowest 

pecuniary jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such property is situated. 

8. Creditor not to accept payment against extinguished debt. - 

(1) No creditor shall accept any payment against any bonded debt which has been 

extinguished or deemed to have been extinguished or fully satisfied by virtue of the 

provisions of this Act. 

(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (1), shall be punishable with 

imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be 

less than fifteen thousand rupees, or with both. 

(3) The court convicting any person under subsection (2) may, in addition to the penalties 

which may be imposed under that subsection, direct such person to deposit, in court, the 

amount accepted in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1), within such period 

as may be specified in the order, for being refunded to the bonded labourer. 

9. Authorities who may be specified for implementing the provisions of this Act. 

The Provincial Government may confer such powers and impose such duties on a 

District Magistrate 2 as may be necessary to ensure that the provisions of this Act are 

properly carried out and the District Magistrate 2 may designate an officer subordinate to him 

to exercise all or any of the powers, and perform all or any of the duties, so conferred or 

imposed and specify the local limits within which such powers or duties shall be carried out 

by such officer. 

10. Duty of District Magistrate2 and other officers designated by him. 

(1) The District Magistrate 3 authorised by the Provincial Government under section 9, and 

the officer designated by the District Magistrate 2 under that section, shall, as far as 

practicable, try to promote the welfare of the freed bonded labourer by securing and 

protecting the economic interests of such bonded labourer so that he may not have any 

occasion or reason to contract any further bonded debt. 

(2) It shall be the duty of every District Magistrate 2 and every officer designated by him 

under section 9 to inquire whether after the commencement of this Act, any bonded 

labour system or any other form of forced labour is being enforced by, or on behalf of, 

any person resident within the local limits of his jurisdiction and if, as a result of such 

inquiry, any person is found to be enforcing the bonded labour system or any other 

system of forced labour, he shall forthwith take such action as may be necessary to 

implement the provisions of this Act.. 

11. Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour. 

Whoever, after the commencement of this Act compels any person to render any 

bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 

two years nor more than five years, or with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand 

rupees, or with both. 

--- 126 ---

12. Punishment for extracting bonded labour under the bonded labour system. 

Whoever enforces, after the commencement of this Act any custom, tradition, 

practice, contract, agreement or other instrument, by virtue of which any person or any 

member of his family is required to render any service under the bonded labour system, shall 

be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years nor more 

than five years or with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees, or with both; 

and out of the fine, if recovered, payment shall be made to the bonded labourer at the rate of 

not less than fifty rupees for each day for which bonded labour was extracted from him. 

13. Punishment for omission or failure to restore possession of property to 

bonded labourer. 

Whoever, being required by this Act to restore any property to the possession of any 

bonded labour, omits or fails to do so, within a period of ninety days from the 

commencement of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may 

extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; and 

out of the fine, if recovered, payment shall be made to the bonded labourer at the rate of ten 

rupees for each day during which possession of the property was not restored to him. 

14. Abetment to be an offence 

Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act shall, whether or not the 

offence abetted is committed, be punishable with the same punishment as is provided for the 

offence which has been abetted. 

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "abetment" has the same meaning as 

is assigned to it in the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). 

15. Vigilance Committees. 

(1) Vigilance Committees shall be set up at the District level in the prescribed manner, 

consisting of the elected representatives of the area, representatives of the District 

Administration, Bar Associations, Press, recognized Social Services and Labour 

Departments of the Federal and Provincial Governments. 

(2) The following shall be the functions of the Vigilance Committees, namely: -- 

(a) to advise the District Administration on matters relating to the effective 

implementation of the law and to ensure its implementation in a proper manner; 

(b) to help in the rehabilitation of the freed bonded labourers; 

(c) to keep an eye on the working of the law; and 

(d) to provide the bonded labourers such assistance as may be necessary to achieve 

the objectives of the law. 

16. Offences to be tried by the Magistrate. 

(1) A Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government 

may try any offence under this Act. 

(2) An offence under this Act may be tried summarily. 

17. Cognizance of offences. 

Every offence under this Act shall be cognizable and boilable. 

--- 127 ---

18. Offences by companies. 

(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, 

at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the 

company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall 

be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and 

punished accordingly. 

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where any offence under this Act. 

has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed 

with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of any 

director, manager or other officer of the company, such director, manager or other officer 

shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against 

and punished accordingly. Explanation: - For the purposes of this section, - 

(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association or 

individuals; and 

(b) "director", in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm. 

19. Protection of action taken in good faith. 

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against Government or any 

officer of the Government for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done 

under this Act. 

20. Jurisdiction of courts barred. 

Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no court shall have jurisdiction in respect of 

any matter to which any provision of this Act applies and no injunction shall be granted by 

any court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done under this Act. 

21. Power to make rules. 

The Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for 

carrying out the purposes of this Act. 

Notes: 

1. The text of the Act is given here as it was published in the Gazette of 17 th March 1992. 

2. Following the abolition of the office of District Magistrate, the expression District Magistrate, 

wherever occurring in the Act, was replaced with District Coordination Officer (DCO). 

--- 128 ---

BONDED LABOUR SYSTEM (ABOLITION) RULES, 1995 

(Gazetted on 25 July, 1995) 

--- 129 --- 

Appendix B 

S. R. O. 723 (1) / 95, dated 20-7-1995. In exercise of the powers conferred by 

section 21 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 (III of 1992), the Federal 

Government is pleased to make the following rules, namely:- 

1. Short title and commencement. 

(1) These rules may be called the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Rules, 1995. 

(2) They shall come into force at once. 

2. Definition. 

(1) In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. 

(a) "Act" means the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1992 (III of 1992); 

(b) "Authority" means authority prescribed under rule 3; 

(c) "Chairman" means the Chairman of a Vigilance Committee; 

(d) "Fund" means Fund established under rule 9; and 

(e) "Vigilance Committee" means Vigilance Committee set up under rule 6. 

(2) All other expressions used but not defined in these rules shall have the meaning 

assigned to them under the Act. 

3. Authority to deal with cases of restoration of possession of any property of 

bonded labourer or a member of his family. 

(1) The Provincial Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, establish one 

or more authorities to deal with cases of restoration of possession of any property 

under subsection (7) of section 6 of the Act and specify the territorial limits within 

which each one of them shall exercise jurisdiction under the Act. 

(2) An authority established under sub-rule (1) shall consist of an officer of the Provincial 

Government with experience as a judge of a civil court. 

(3) The bonded labourer or a member of his family himself or through a legal practitioner 

may file an application before the authority for restoration of possession of any 

property that has been taken by creditor or attached, sold, transferred or assigned 

within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. 

(4) When an application under sub-rule (3) is filed, the authority shall hear the petitioner 

and the creditor or any other person acting on behalf of the creditor, and pass order 

as it deems proper. 

(5) As far as possible, the authority shall decide the application filed under sub-rule (3) 

within a period of thirty days from the date the application has been filed before it. 

(6) The aggrieved person may file his application under sub-rule (3) with the authority 

within a period of seven years from the date of the commencement of these rules or 

from the date the cause of action arises.

4. Powers and duties of the District Magistrate for implementing the provisions of 

the Act. 

(1) The Provincial Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, confer upon 

every District Magistrate 2 in the Province the following powers, namely:- 

(a) to inspect any premises or work place in his jurisdiction where he has reason to 

believe that bonded labour system is being enforced and make such examination 

of that place or any record, register or other documents maintained therein and 

may require any explanation of any person or record or document and take such 

measures as he may consider necessary for the purposes of the Act; 

(b) to call for such information from the creditor or any other person as he may deem 

necessary for the discharge of his functions; 

(c) to enquire into any matter relating to the implementation or violation of the 

provisions of the Act; and 

(d) to exercise such other powers as may be conferred upon him for carrying out the 

purposes of the Act. 

(2) The Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, confer on a 

District Magistrate 2 all or any of the following duties, namely:-- 

(a) to mobilize Government and non-Government organisations falling in his 

jurisdiction for the purpose that those should work together so as to bring to light 

the cases of bonded labourer so that measures should betaken under the law for 

their freedom and rehabilitation; 

(b) to urge academic institutions and vocational training schools to prepare 

programmes for the education and training of workers freed from the bonded 

labour system; 

(c) to persuade philanthropists and social welfare organizations to undertake 

activities to rehabilitate and promote the welfare of the freed bonded labourer by 

securing and protecting the economic interest of such freed bonded labourer to 

enable him not to contract any further bonded debt; and 

(d) to perform such other duties as may be conferred upon him for carrying out the 

purposes of the Act. 

5. Other officers to exercise powers and perform duties conferred upon a District 

Magistrate2. 

(1) The District Magistrate shall, by an order in writing, designate all Magistrates, all 

Labour Officers, all Labour Inspectors and all Police Officers not below the rank of 

Assistant Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police, performing 

function within the territorial jurisdiction of a district under his control to exercise all or 

any of the powers and perform all or any of the duties, so conferred or imposed upon 

him under rule 4. 

(2) An order issued under sub-rule (1) shall specify the territorial limits within which such 

powers or duties shall be exercised or carried by such officer. 

6. Constitution and meetings of the Vigilance Committees. 

(1) The Provincial Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute in 

each district of the Province a Vigilance Committee consisting of the following 

members, namely: 

--- 130 ---

(A) Deputy Commissioner of the District Chairman 

(b) A police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police as 

nominated by the Senior Superintendent of Police" 1 of the District 

(c) District and Session Judge, retired or serving, to be nominated by the 

Provincial Government. 

--- 131 --- 

Member 

Member 

(d) President District Bar Association Member 

(e) An elected member of the District Council, to be nominated by the 

Local Government and Rural Development Department of the 

Provincial Government. 

(f) A Member of the Provincial Assembly, to be nominated by the 

Provincial Government in consultation with the Local Government and 

Rural Development Department of the Province. 

(g) A representative of the Labour and Manpower Department of the 

province not below the rank of Assistant Director Labour Welfare, to be 

nominated by that Department. 

(h) A representative of the Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis 

Division of the Federal Government, to be nominated by that Division. 

(i) A representative of the Education Department not below the rank of an 

officer in BPS-17 or a staff member of an educational institution run or 

controlled by the Provincial Government, to be nominated by that 

Department. 

(j) A representative of the Agriculture Department not below the rank of 

an officer in Basic Pay Scale 17, to be nominated by that Department. 

(k) A representative of the Health Department preferably a qualified 

physician, to be nominated by that Department. 

(I) A representative of a recognized body of workers, to be nominated by 

the Provincial Labour and Manpower Department in consultation with 

that body. 

(m) A representative of a recognized body of employers, to be nominated 

by the Provincial Labour and Manpower Department in consultation 

with that body. 

(n) A representative of a registered or recognized NGO working for the 

protection of human rights, to be nominated by the District 

administration with approval of the concerned Deputy Commissioner 

(0) A journalist of a standing competence and having experience of 

working in the field of human rights, to be nominated by the Federal 

Information Department. 

(p) A representative of Social Welfare Department of the Province not 

below the rank of an officer in Basic Pay Scale 17, to be nominated by 

that Department. 

(q) Two representatives of recognized social services, one from All 

Pakistan Women Association and one from any other body established 

to render services to the society at large for its development, to be 

nominated by the Federal Government. 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member 

Member

(2) As soon as the Vigilance Committee is constituted, the Chairman shall call the 

preliminary meeting of the Committee and designate one of the official members as 

Secretary who shall be responsible to record minutes of every meeting and, subject 

to the approval of the Chairman, shall correspond with the concerned Government 

Departments or other agencies, maintain records of proceedings and 

correspondences and undertake all transactions that are necessary in carrying out 

the objectives of the Act and the rules. 

(3) The Vigilance Committee shall meet in the first week of every month at a place and 

in the manner as directed by the Chairman. 

(4) An. emergency meeting of the Vigilance Committee may be convened at forty-eight 

hours notice in writing given to the Chairman, at least by seven members under their 

signatures. 

7. Functions of the Vigilance Committee. 

(1) Subject to the overall control of the Provincial Government, a Vigilance Committee 

shall be responsible to ensure that the objectives of the law are fully achieved and in 

particular shall perform the functions assigned to it under the Act. 

(2) The Vigilance Committee may, at any time, call upon a department or an agency or a 

company or an employing establishment or firm or an individual employer or any 

other person to furnish it with such information and documents as may be relevant or 

useful in connection with performance of its functions under subsection (2) of section 

15 of the Act. 

(3) The Vigilance Committee shall establish a complaint cell in the office of the Deputy 

Commissioner3 which shall be managed by its Secretary. 

(4) The Secretary or any member of the Vigilance Committee, on having the knowledge 

that at a work place bonded labour was employed, he shall forthwith report to the 

District Magistrate' for taking appropriate action under the Act. 

8. Tenure of office of non-official members. 

(1) A non-official member of the Vigilance Committee shall hold office for a period of two 

years from the date of his appointment as a member and shall be eligible for renomination. 

(2) An outgoing member may continue in office until the appointment of his successor. 

(3) No act or proceedings of the Vigilance Committee shall be invalid for reasons only of 

existence of a vacancy in, or defect in the constitution of, the Committee. 

(4) A person appointed as member of the Vigilance Committee to fill casual vacancy 

shall hold office for the unexpired period of his predecessor, 

(5) A member of the Vigilance Committee may, by writing in his own hand addressed to 

the concerned Chairman, resign his office. 

(6) A member of the Vigilance Committee may be removed by the Provincial 

Government if he is convicted of an offence which in the opinion of the Provincial 

Government involves moral turpitude or if he has been absent from three 

consecutive meetings without leave of absence obtained from the Chairman. 

9. Establishment of the Fund. 

(1) There shall be established for the rehabilitation and welfare of the freed bonded 

labourers a Fund consisting of:- 

--- 132 ---

(a) any initial or subsequent contribution made by the Federal Government or 

Provincial Government; 

(b) such sums and voluntary contributions as may, from time to time, be paid by any 

national or international organization; and 

(c) income from the investments made and properties and assets acquired out of the 

Fund. 

(2) The Fund shall be utilized to> 

(a) finance the projects connected with the establishment of training institutes for the 

training of persons freed from bonded labour system; 

(b) provide legal and financial assistance to the bonded labourers or their family 

members for the sake of protection of their rights under the Act; 

(c) finance the other measures for the rehabilitation and welfare of a freed bonded 

labourer as envisaged in subsection (1) of section 10 of the Act; 

(d) meet expenditure in respect of cost of management and administration of the 

Fund; and 

(e) make investment in securities approved for the purposes by the Provincial 

Government. 

(3) The Provincial Government may allocate any sum out of the Fund to the Vigilance 

Committees to perform their functions under the Act and these Rules. 

(4) The Vigilance Committee and those committees shall quarterly furnish to the 

Provincial Government a statement of its accounts. 

(5) No sum shall be spent by the Vigilance Committee without approval, in writing, of the 

Chairman. 

(6) Each Vigilance Committee shall get its accounts audited subject to the direction and 

control of the Provincial Government. 

10. Traveling allowance and daily allowance of non-official members. 

A non-official member of a Vigilance Committee shall be entitled to travel allowance 

and daily allowance at the rates determined by the Provincial Government from time to time, 

in keeping with the established practices and prevailing cost of living. 

Notes: 

1. The Rules are reproduced in the form in which they were gazetted. 

2. Under the District Government system the revenue officers have been re-designated. The 

duties of Commissioner were performed by Executive District Officer (EDO), of the District 

Coliector by District Officer (Revenue), and of the Assistant Collector class 1 by Deputy 

District Officer (Revenue). 

3. For Deputy Commissioner read District Nazim. 

4. For Senior Superintendent of the District read District Police Officer (DPO). 

--- 133 ---

Judical Action to end Bonded Labour - Human Rights Commission ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?