Labour Rights - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court prohibited hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran, declaring the practice a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution as it constitutes forced labour and offends human dignity. It directed the state to rehabilitate pullers by providing e-rickshaws through a welfare scheme, balancing ecological concerns with the constitutional mandate of social and economic justice. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the eco-sensitive hill station of Matheran in Maharashtra, renowned as a pedestrian-only zone. The primary issues involved whether paver blocks could be laid on the main road to prevent soil erosion and if hand-pulled rickshaws, a long-standing mode of transport, could be replaced with battery-operated e-rickshaws. The state government and the Matheran Municipal Council...

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...

Tag: Labour Rights

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court