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

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 ---