Alleged underpayment of wages to SC/ST employees does not constitute "forced labour" or "cheating" under Atrocity Act and IPC.

The applicant, President of the Akhil Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (Union), representing daily-wage sweepers belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, filed a private complaint against the office bearers of the Talala Municipality (Respondents No. 2 to 5).

He alleged that the sweepers had worked for 20-25 years without regularization or minimum wages, which he equated to "forced labour" under Article 23 of the Constitution.

He further alleged that upon demanding minimum wages, the respondents threatened and illegally removed the workers, violating sections of the IPC and the Atrocity Act.

A police inquiry report by the SC/ST Cell concluded no offence was made out.

Consequently, the Special Judge dismissed the Criminal Inquiry Case No. 1/2019 on 03.10.2019, leading to this revision application.

1. Whether the non-payment of minimum wages and subsequent termination of SC/ST daily wagers constitutes "forced labour" or "begar" under Section 3(1)(h) of the Atrocity Act.

2. Whether the actions of the public servants involved amounted to criminal cheating (S. 420 IPC), unlawful compulsion of labour (S. 374 IPC), or public servant disobeying law (S. 166 IPC).

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the discretionary order of the subordinate court in its revisional jurisdiction.

The court primarily applied Section 3(1)(h) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which criminalizes compelling a member of an SC/ST community to perform "begar" or forced labour.

It also considered Sections 374 (unlawful compulsory labour), 420 (cheating), and 166 (public servant disobeying law) of the Indian Penal Code.

Regarding the procedural remedy for wage disputes, the court referenced Section 22 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which provides a specific mechanism and requires a written complaint by a competent authority for cognizance.

For the standard of revision, it relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) and Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh (2022), establishing that revisional courts should only interfere in cases of patent illegality or perversity.

The Court reasoned that the mere fact that daily wagers belong to the SC community does not automatically invoke the Atrocity Act without evidence of compulsion or bonded labour.

Since the sweepers joined the Municipality voluntarily for public service, their engagement does not qualify as "forced labour" under Section 3(1)(h).

Regarding the IPC charges, the Court found no evidence of mens rea (guilty mind), dishonesty, or intentional injury required to satisfy Sections 420 or 166.

The Court observed that the dispute was essentially a civil/labour matter regarding wages and service benefits.

It held that the applicant attempted to give a "cloak of criminality" to a labour dispute and should have approached the Labour Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act instead of filing a criminal complaint.

Applying the limits of revisional jurisdiction, the Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Special Judge's dismissal.

The Court held that no prima facie case was made out under the Atrocity Act or the IPC.

It concluded that the proper remedy for wage grievances lies under specialized labour legislation (Minimum Wages Act) or writ jurisdiction, not through criminal prosecution under the Atrocity Act.

Rule was discharged.