Bonded Labour in the Karnataka Sugarcane Harvesting Industry

 

Authorities as Agents and Perpetrators of Bonded Labour!

Bonded labour comes in many forms, and does not require the chaining of a human or any physical constraints to be recognised and considered as such. It is a practice that allows for the subjugations of persons and the exploitation of their labour. The use of bonded labour is contrary to the dignity of the individiual and a violation of their funamental rigth. All bonded labour is constitutionally prohibited under Article 23 of and statutorily prohibited in the Bonded Labour Systems (Abolition) Act, 1976 (the 1976 Act).

Despite these legal protections, the sugarcane harvesting industry in Karnataka sees deeply entrenched systems of bonded labour each season. Workers are brought from other States on payment of an advance by Mukadam, an agent of the sugarcane factory, and made to work in absolute contravention of all base norms of labour without being informed about the rate of salary, the period of work etc. Despite the textbook examples of bonded labour prohibited under the 1976 Act, authorities are not only reluctant to perform mandatory duties under the statute, but actually form part of the framework that implements these systems.

In view of two such incidents recently of bonded labour and child labour of adivasis from Madhya Pradesh, a joint fact finding was conducted by People’s Union for Civil Liberties – Karnataka, All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice  and All India Students’ Association. It was found that the workers were brought to Belagavi, from Madhya Pradesh on payment of advance of Rs. 20,000 per labourer, with almost half the team being minors. Prior to being brought to Belagavi, the labourers were not informed of the rate of wages to be paid to them or details of repayment or information of interest accruing to the advance given to them.  Upon their arrival at Belagavi, the labourers were made to live in tarpaulin shacks around the fields they harvested. The labourers worked daily for almost 15 hours a day, harvesting sugarcane and loading the daily harvest onto the tractors, and were not paid at all by the contractor, but were paid small sums of Rs. 25-30 per person by the farmers on whose lands they worked, as tips. After working for 2 ½ months without pay, they enquired with their contractor about their wages, but were informed that they were still under the debt of Rs. 2 lakhs and that they could leave only after clearing this debt. This is clearly a ‘bonded debt’ as defined under the Bonded Labour Systems (Abolition) Act, 1976.

Shockingly, the Tehsildar of each taluk undertook spot enquiries with members of the labour and police departments and panchayat officials and gave reports that there was no bonded labour or child labour, on the grounds that the labourers were not physically restrained. On the basis of this, the Deputy Commissioner issued a report denying that there was any child labour or bonded labour, in violation of various guidelines issued by the Central Government. Even the police refused to register an FIR despite their obligations under the Supreme Court judgement in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014). 2 SCC 1, till pressure was placed by various social activists as well as the fact finding team. The repeated denial by various state authorities to recognise any  occurance of violation of the rights of adivasi migrant workers and their children as well as  their denial to initiate proceedings against the accused according to the provisions of the law, coupled with the indifference and insensitivity that various officials displayed towards grave violations of the rights of one of the most marginalised communities, makes it evident the they were attempting to sweep the issue under the carpet.

Our understanding of the violation of workers rights that took place must draw from an interlaced  framework of rights, drawing from the Constitution, multiple statutes and policy documents. At the outset, Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits begar  and other forms of forced labour. In fact, the Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India in PUDR vs. Union of India [AIR 1982  SC 1473] and Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1983 SC 328] has held that non-payment of minimum wages would amount to forced labour in terms of Article 23 of the Constitution. The treatment of the workers is also a violation of their fundamental right to live with dignity recognised by the Courts,  as  an aspect of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Additionally,  Article 24 of the Constitution prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in any hazardous employment. Not only this, the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution requires the State to provide for just and humane conditions of work (Article 42), and requires the State to endeavour to secure to all workers - work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities (Article 43). Similarly, the State is required to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation (Article 46).

Statutorily, the above mentioned incident is a classic example of ‘bonded labour system’ forbidden under the  Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Under the act, if  a worker is forced to render labour for the benefit of the creditor for an unspecified period without wages, in consideration of an advance being made to them,  it will be termed as bonded labour. The child workers were also working in violation of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The other statutory rights of the workers under the Minimum Wages Act and the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, were wholly contravened. The fact finding team calculated the pending dues of each workman to be Rs. 1,18,878.8/-. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was also violated as was Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Both these laws place extensive responsibilities on the shoulders of the district administration to ensure implementation of law.

The rehabilitation to these workers, had they been recognised as bonded labourers by the District Administration, would have been in terms of the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labour 2016, which does not require any state contribution. The Scheme mandates payment of rehabilitation package of Rs. 1 lakh per adult male bonded labourer and Rs. 2 lakh per woman or child bonded labourers, in addition to

Allotment of house site and agricultural land

Land Development

Provision of low cost dwelling units

Animal husbandry, dairy, poultry, piggery etc.

Wage employment, enforcement of minimum wages etc

Collection and processing of minor forest products

Supply of essential commodities under targeted PDS, and

Education for children

Moreover, the procedure to be followed by all enforcing agencies in case of any complaint of bonded labour is detailed in the Standard Operating Procedure for the Identification and Rescue of Bonded Labourers and Prosecution of Offender, 2017 issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. The entire document has been comprehensively violated by the Belagavi administration. Importantly, even the National Human Rights Commission has issued Advisories to Identify, Release and Rehabilitate Bonded Labourers dated 31/05/2021 and 08/12/2021 regarding bonded labourers. One important direction is that in all actions, the district administration/ state government should direct its officials to treat the bonded labourers with dignity and respect. However, in the cases in Belagavi, without even speaking to the workers, the DC of Belagavi deemed fit to issue a report stating that no bonded labour has been found, and denying them all or any relief.

It is apparent that the problem is not constrained to institutional apathy. In fact, officials at each level are players in the game, whose inaction is not a failure to act but an active denial of rights that further entrenches bonded labour. The dogged refusal to comply with the law on the ground that the workers were not physically restrained is a disgraceful position for the so-called implementing agencies to take. Despite the abundance of statutory and policy guidance, the ground situation is that far from being an implementing agency, the district authorities act as agents and perpetrators of bonded labour.