Capital Motors Ltd. is a sizable manufacturing facility in Lucknow that produces a lot of automobile parts like OEMs and others. The Mukesh Manpower Solutions' headed by Mukesh, a Jharkhand based unregistered labour cont

Yes, the confiscation of identity documents, restriction of movement, and payment of sub-minimum wages amount to "Forced Labour" under Article 23 and a violation of the Right to Life with Dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 assures every person right to life and personal liberty. The term 'life' has been given a very expansive meaning. The term 'personal liberty' has been given a very wide amplitude covering a variety of rights which go to constitute personal liberty of a citizen. Its deprivation shall only be as per the relevant procedure prescribed in the relevant law, but the procedure has to be fair, just and reasonable. In the case of D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd 1993 SCR (3) 930 , the court held: "Article 21 of the Constitution clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence." In CERC v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 922 , in which after taking note of the cases in which it has been held that the right to life in Article 21 includes "right to human dignity", the Court now held that: "right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or post-retirement is a Fundamental Right under Article 21, read with the Directive Principles in Articles 39(1), 41, 43, 48A and all related Articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workmen meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person." The Supreme Court has given an expansive significance to the term "forced labour" used in Article 23(1) in a series of cases beginning with the Asiad case in 1982 ( People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 ). The Court has insisted that Article 23 is intended to abolish every form of forced labour even if it has origin in a contract. Article 23 strikes at forced labour in whatever form it may manifest itself, because it is violative of human dignity and is contrary to the basic human values. In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, 1983, SCR (2) 271 case, it was held that when a person provides labour or service to another for remuneration which is less than the prescribed minimum wages, the labour so provided clearly falls within the ambit of the words 'forced labour' under Article 23. The rationale adopted was that when someone works for less than the minimum wages, the presumption is that he or she is working under some compulsion. Hence it was held that such a person would be entitled to approach the higher judiciary under writ jurisdiction (Article 226 or Article 32) for the enforcement of fundamental rights which include the payment of minimum wages.