12 workers rescued from UP factory: Laws against bonded labour explained

The rescue of 12 workers from a UP factory has sent shockwaves across the country. Here's what Indian law says about forced labour, dignity, and workers' rights

A majority of Indians who stay away from the hinterland may believe that the curse of bonded labour is a thing of the past. Well, the 12 workers recused by the police in Muzaffarnagar district in Uttar Pradesh will strongly disagree with the notion. 

Police said on Thursday that another labourer who had worked at the same factory allegedly died after being tortured, and that his body was dumped in a bag. 

Police allege the workers were held captive for months, tortured, denied wages and prevented from leaving; accusations that, if proven, point not only to serious criminal offences but also to violations of multiple constitutional guarantees and labour laws that have evolved through decades of Supreme Court rulings.

 

How Muzaffarnagar's alleged bonded labour racket came to light

When a labourer climbed over the boundary wall of a disposable leaf bowl and paper plate manufacturing unit in Muzaffarnagar's Mandi village on June 22 and reached the Titawi police station, he set in motion an investigation that uncovered what police have described as a bonded labour racket. 

During subsequent raids, officials rescued 12 workers, including minors, from the factory premises. 

According to police, the workers had been brought from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and even Nepal after being promised jobs paying ₹12,000 a month along with food and accommodation. 

"The workers were strictly forbidden from contacting their families and not allowed to leave the premises. Any attempt to escape or protest was met with brutal violence," a police official was quoted as saying by news agency PTI. 

The workers allegedly told investigators they were made to work from around 4 am until nearly midnight every day. Medical examinations reportedly found bruises, cuts, fractures and other signs of prolonged physical abuse. Police said they were allegedly assaulted with iron rods, sticks and fan belts, while pitbull dogs were used to intimidate them and prevent escape. Workers also alleged they survived on rotis made from bran, a feed commonly used for cattle. 

The allegations have led police to invoke provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to human trafficking and murder, along with the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Why the Constitution treats bonded labour differently

Unlike many labour disputes, bonded labour is not viewed merely as a workplace violation. It directly engages India's constitutional promise of dignity, liberty and freedom from exploitation, and a direct infringement of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the Supreme Court has consistently expanded its meaning to include the right to live with dignity, free from exploitation and involuntary servitude. 

At the heart of this protection is Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits trafficking in human beings, beggary and all other forms of forced labour. Any violation is punishable under the law. The National Human Rights Commission notes that Article 23 forms the constitutional foundation of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. 

The allegations emerging from Muzaffarnagar closely mirror the characteristics that Indian law associates with bonded labour—restricted freedom of movement, forced work, nominal or unpaid wages, intimidation and physical coercion. 

The rescue operation assumes added significance because police said minors were among those freed. Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous occupations, a protection reinforced by the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act.

What the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act says

Parliament enacted the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 to abolish bonded labour in all forms and to prevent the economic and physical exploitation of vulnerable workers. The law came into force with retrospective effect from October 25, 1975.

  The Act does more than prohibit bonded labour. It declares the entire system illegal. 

Section 4 abolishes the bonded labour system and provides that every bonded labourer stands freed from any obligation to render bonded labour. It also prohibits anyone from compelling another person to perform bonded or forced labour.

 

Section 5 goes a step further by declaring void every agreement, custom or traditional arrangement requiring a person or any member of their family to work as bonded labour. In other words, even if such an arrangement exists on paper or is socially accepted, it carries no legal validity.

 

The legislation also extinguishes bonded debt. Under Section 6, any liability to repay such debt automatically ceases, pending recovery proceedings become unenforceable and attached property must be restored to the bonded labourer.

 

Importantly, the Act places responsibility on the State as well. District Magistrates are tasked with implementing the law, identifying bonded labourers, ensuring their release and overseeing rehabilitation through district-level vigilance committees. Simply rescuing workers is not considered sufficient under the statutory framework.

 

The Act criminalises compelling a person into bonded labour, advancing bonded debt, enforcing the bonded labour system, accepting repayment of extinguished debt and failing to restore property to freed labourers. These offences can attract imprisonment of up to three years along with fines.

How the Supreme Court expanded workers' rights

Much of today's understanding of bonded labour comes from landmark Supreme Court judgments delivered during the early 1980s.

 

In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), popularly known as the Asiad Workers' case, the Court ruled that paying labourers less than the statutory minimum wage amounts to forced labour prohibited under Article 23. The judgment made clear that coercion need not always involve physical violence; economic compulsion can also violate constitutional protections.

 

The following year, in Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983), the Court held that even workers employed under government famine relief programmes could not legally be paid less than minimum wages, which reinforced that constitutional guarantees apply irrespective of the employer.

 

The landmark judgment came in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), where the Supreme Court described the right to life under Article 21 as the right to live with human dignity.

 

The Court held that this includes humane working conditions, health, drinking water, shelter and protection from exploitation, and emphasised that governments have a constitutional obligation to enforce labour welfare laws.

 

The Court also laid down an important evidentiary principle. Where workers appear to be performing forced labour under circumstances indicating bondage, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption that they are bonded labourers.

 

Soon afterwards, in Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1984), the Supreme Court observed that merely identifying and releasing bonded labourers was not enough. The State also had a continuing obligation to rehabilitate them so they would not slip back into debt bondage.