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

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 ---