Delhi HC says labourers are 'least paid, least cared' for, society does not value their physical work
The Delhi High Court has observed that labourers in India are among the “least paid and cared” for and said society has failed to give adequate value and respect to physical labour.
The observations were made while hearing an appeal filed by Veer Pal, who challenged his conviction and five-year prison sentence for assaulting a labourer after he objected to the nuisance caused by Pal and others while he was trying to sleep.
The high court altered Pal's conviction from attempt to murder to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons, observing that the intention or knowledge required to establish an attempt to murder was not proved in the circumstances of the case. It also reduced his prison sentence from five years to three years.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, in a judgment delivered on September 18, said a labourer who spends the day doing physically demanding work needs peaceful sleep at night to recover and prepare for the following day's work.
The court observed that this has become a continuing problem for labourers in the country, who are “least paid, least cared and least bothered”.
It further described it as a “very pathetic state of affairs” that society had failed to recognise and respect physical labour, contrasting this with the western world, where such work is adequately valued and compensated.
The incident dates back to the night of March 17, 2002. Rajinder Kumar was employed at a shop in Lajpat Rai Market in Chandni Chowk and was about to sleep, or was already sleeping, in the shop's verandah when the incident occurred.
According to the court, Pal and some others were creating a nuisance that disturbed Kumar. When Kumar asked them to stop, Pal became angry, pushed him and attacked him with a sharp instrument. The weapon used was a rapi, an instrument used by cobblers to cut leather.
A police officer on patrol noticed the commotion. Kumar was taken to hospital, while Pal was taken to the police station and a case was registered against him for attempt to murder.
A trial court subsequently convicted Pal and sentenced him to five years in prison.
While challenging the conviction, Pal argued that the incident happened suddenly and was neither premeditated nor planned. He also contended that only one blow had been inflicted and that Kumar was not the person at whom his anger was directed.
The high court noted that Pal and Kumar were not known to each other and had neither been fighting nor quarrelling. Kumar had intervened only because the altercation involving Pal and the others was disturbing his sleep, the court said.
While deciding the sentence, the high court also took into account the fact that the incident occurred in 2002. It noted that there was nothing on record indicating any questionable antecedents of Pal or any subsequent involvement in another offence after the case. (with inputs from PTI)
