Punjab & Haryana High Court directs District Magistrate to act on bonded labour complaint, applies Murti precedent

Case Name: Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment: October 06, 2025
Citation: CRWP-10859-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking release of five detenues allegedly held as bonded labourers at a brick kiln in Panchkula. The Court directed the District Magistrate, Panchkula, to treat the writ petition as a complaint under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, and take appropriate action in accordance with law within one week. It reaffirmed the principle that the District Magistrate is under a statutory duty to conduct a fact-finding inquiry whenever allegations of bonded labour are raised.

Summary: The petitioner Vijay Kumar sought a writ of habeas corpus for the release of five family members allegedly detained and forced to work without wages at “AKM” brick kiln, Kheranwali Road, Village Charnia, Panchkula. He alleged that the detenues were engaged under a contract for ₹580 per thousand bricks, but payment was stopped after the first week, and they were coerced to continue working under threat and intimidation by hired musclemen.

Relying on Murti v. State of Punjab (LPA No. 32 of 2013, decided on January 11, 2013) and Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab (CRWP No. 4666 of 2020, decided on July 8, 2020), the Court reiterated that bonded labour constitutes a grave violation under Sections 16 and 17 of the 1976 Act, and the District Magistrate must act upon such complaints immediately. It noted that the petitioner’s prayer was limited to seeking action under the statutory mechanism rather than direct release orders.

Decision: Disposing of the petition, the High Court directed the District Magistrate, Panchkula, to examine the allegations expeditiously, conduct an inquiry under Sections 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, and take necessary steps if the allegations were found true. The District Magistrate was ordered to act within one week of receiving the order and a copy of the petition. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.