The National Human Rights Commission has decided to seek the directions of the Supreme Court on the issue of payment of compensation on identification and release of bonded labour in the State where they are detected and also on the issue of payment of rehabilitation package for the released labourers.

The Commission has experienced that even after identification of bonded migrant labour, the directions given by the Supreme Court for payment of compensation and the rehabilitation package are not being strictly implemented. Both the States - the State from which the bonded labour migrated, as well as the State in which the bonded labour are detected and released - avoid discharge of the liability on the pretext that the other State is liable. In order to ensure strict compliance of the Supreme Court direction as well as the requirements of the law on the subject, the Commission has felt it necessary to solicit further directions of the Apex Court.

Specifically, the Commission had taken cognizance of a complaint alleging that 13 labourers and their family, originally from Uttar Pradesh, were working as bonded labourers in a brick-kiln in Jhajhar area of Haryana. The police had not taken adequate action inspite of complaints. The report of the District Collector, called for by the Commission, stated that the complaint involved only a dispute between the brick-kiln owner and some labourers, which had been resolved upon the intervention of the Labour Commissioner. The labourers had been sent to their village in Etah district of Uttar Pradesh.

The Commission, prima-facie, found it apparent the labourers were working under duress and compulsion and had been released only after the intervention of the Labour Commissioner. It, thus, directed the District Collector, Jhajhar to initiate lawful action against the owner of the brick-kiln and submit a report on the measures that had been undertaken to rehabilitate the released labourers. The District Collector was further directed to issue release certificate under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 to all the labourers; to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to each – 10,000/- of which was to be contributed by the State Government and rest by the Central Government.

The Commission also directed the District Collector, Etah, Uttar Pradesh to rehabilitate the bonded labourers by setting up a Released Bonded Labourer’s Co-operative Society in the village of their origin and assign the welfare schemes available in the district to the Co-operative Society.

While the DC, Jhajhar confirmed the issuing of release certificates to the labourers; his report was silent about the payment of the rehabilitatory grant. The rehabilitation of released bonded labourers is governed by the instructions and guidelines issued by the Union Labour Ministry. As per the practice in vogue in most of the States, released labourers are to be formally given the option to settle in the host State or return to their parent State. However in reality, they rarely have been found to be able to exercise this option. Most District Magistrates arrange to send the released labourers to their parent States and forward their relevant documents to the concerned District Magistrate for rehabilitation. In this case also, DC, Jhajhar had forwarded all the relevant matters to DM, Etah.

The Commission felt that it was reasonable to take the view that the State in which the labourer was found in bondage and was released should be the one to bear the financial burden of Rs.10,000/- towards payment to the released bonded labourer instead of the State from which the person had migrated. In the absence of clarity in this issue, the payment amount was not only delayed but was often not made. Thus, the Commission felt that the situation needed to be remedied immediately by issuance of clear instructions identifying the State which was to be responsible for making the payment.

It was also necessary that all the District Magistrates should be made to appreciate and fully realize that it was their primary responsibility to ensure the release of bonded labourers and make the payment available to them. Therefore, it was essential for them to ensure that the entire payment due to each bonded labourer was made at the earliest, upon their release.

Thus, while the Commission has decided approach the Supreme Court for directions on the larger issue, for the specific case considered by it, the Commission has directed the DM, Etah to contact the complainant who had brought the case to the notice of the Commission and take steps to locate and rehabilitate the bonded labourers named by the complainant. The Commission has also asked the complainant to facilitate completion of this task by the DM, Etah by getting in touch with him. The DC, Jhajhar has also been directed to make all the necessary documents available to the DM, Etah.

The Commission has desired that this entire work be completed in a month’s time.