CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949

Subject Matter : Equal Pay from Equal Work
Relevant Section : Article 39(d): of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy.
Article 14 of the Constitution states that the State cannot deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws.
Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Key Issue : The Petitioner demanded that pay scale should at least be the same as the pay scale of other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration, otherwise it is violative of Article 14, 16 and 39 (d)?
Citation Details : Randhir Singh vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (22.02.1982 - SC): MANU/SC/0234/1982
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The Petitioner was a Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration and he demanded that pay scale should atleast be the same as the pay scale of other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration, otherwise it is violative of Article 14, 16 and 39 (d).

Held: that since the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government, the respondents should fix the scale of pay of the petitioner. Further, the Court observed the principle of "equal pay for equal work" as a Constitutional Goal even though not a fundamental right.

Subject Matter : Bonded Labour
Relevant Section : Article 21 is the right to life and personal liberty.
Key Issue : It was alledged that the persons working in the mines were being subject to inhumane conditions as forced/bonded labourers which was violative of their fundamental right under Article 21?
Citation Details : Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (16.12.1983 - SC): MANU/SC/0051/1983
Summary Judgment :

Facts: A social cause organisation approached the Supreme Court through a letter to investigate the existence of inhuman conditions in certain mines where numerous persons were working as forced/bonded labourers in contravention of Article 21.

Held: that State is under an obligation to ensure no violation of fundamental rights of any person. State is bound to ensure observance of social welfare and labour laws enacted for securing workmen a basic human dignity in such matters.

Subject Matter : Termination of employee
Relevant Section : Article 14 speaks about equality before law and equal protection of the laws.
Key Issue : The question arose on the constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice?
Citation Details : Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors. (04.09.1990 - SC): MANU/SC/0031/1991
Summary Judgment :

Facts: Respondents were regular employees of Delhi Transport Corporation. Their employment was terminated by the Appellants by giving 1 month notice under a Company Regulation on the ground that their performance was not satisfactory and that were causing other employees problems in their work.

Held: that the regulation of the Corporation to terminate permanent employee by giving them 1 month notice without assigning a reason or giving an opportunity to be heard was against the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14 for being arbitrary.

Subject Matter : Right to form association
Relevant Section : Article 19 (1) (c) speaks about the Fundamental right of citizen to form an associations and unions.
Key Issue : Whether theAct infringed the right of the members of the original Sammelan of forming an association guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c)A of the Constitution?
Citation Details : Damyanti Naranga and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (23.02.1971 - SC): MANU/SC/0726/1971
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The validity of Hindi Satiya Sammelam Act was challenged on the ground that theAct had made the original Sammelan cease to exist and had provided for the Constitution of a new Sammelan under its terms in which the members of the original Sammelan had no say, so that the Act infringed the right of the members of the original Sammelan of forming an association guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

Held: that the right to form association necessarily implies that the persons forming the society have the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law that says otherwise would be violating the right to form association. The right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) cannot be confined to the initial stage of forming an association.

Subject Matter : Right to life to include right to livelihood.
Relevant Section : Article 21 is the right to life and personal liberty.
Key Issue : Whether right to life can stand by itself without a right to livelihood?
Citation Details : Olga Tellis and Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors. (10.07.1985 - SC): MANU/SC/0039/1985
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The Bombay Municipal Corporation demolished the huts and shelters of Basti or Slum dwellers. The same was questioned on being violative of Article 21. Subsequently the question arose whther right to life can stand by itself without a right to livelihood?

Held: that the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away by law. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living which is the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.

Subject Matter : Social Security
Relevant Section : Article 39 (a) directs the State to make its policies in a way whereby both the men and women have equal right to adequate livelihood.
Article 41 lays down that the State should make provisions with regards to securing the right to work, education and public assistance.
Article 14 states that the State cannot deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws.
Key Issue : Whether a rule made by a government company authorising it to terminate the employment of a permanent employee by giving him three months' notice and without giving him chance to be heard is violative of Arts. 39(a) and 41 and ultra vires Art. 14?
Citation Details : Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Ors. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors. (06.04.1986 - SC): MANU/SC/0439/1986
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The majority of the shares of the Appellant, the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited were held by the Union of India which is the Second Respondent, and the remaining shares were and are held by the State of West Bengal and the State of Assam.

Held: that adequate means of livelihood cannot be secured to the citizens by taking away without any reason the means of their livelihood. The company cannot secure the right to work by giving employment to a person and then without any reason throwing him out of employment.

Subject Matter : Child Labour Abolition
Relevant Section : Article 39(f) of Constitution provides that State should direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in healthy manner.
Key Issue : Public Interest Litigation is connected with the problem of employment of children in Match factories of Sivakasi in Kamaraj District of Tamil Nadu State.
Citation Details : M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (31.10.1990 - SC): MANU/SC/0105/1991
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The PIL was filed to bring to the notice of the Court the problem of employment of children in Match factories of Sivakasi in Kamaraj District of Tamil Nadu State. The children were directly involved in the manufacturing process of matchsticks.

Held: that employment of children within match factories directly connected with manufacturing process up to final production of match sticks or fireworks should not at all be permitted. The children can be employed in process of packing but packing should be done in area away from place of manufacture to avoid exposure to accident. Minimum wage does not stand in way of prescription of higher rate if State is satisfied that higher rate is viable.