CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.