- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
The Allahabad High Court has issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government asking about steps being taken to ensure that its natives are not forced to seek employment in other states. The order was passed by a division bench of Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ramesh Sinha on a PIL filed by two practicing advocates of the High Court.The bench has ordered the Government to apprise it of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Allahabad High Court has issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh Government asking about steps being taken to ensure that its natives are not forced to seek employment in other states. The order was passed by a division bench of Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ramesh Sinha on a PIL filed by two practicing advocates of the High Court.
The bench has ordered the Government to apprise it of the “scheme of the government for rehabilitation of migrant workmen and their families in the state.” The state has also been asked to give a complete layout to reduce migration of the natives of Uttar Pradesh to other parts of the country to earn minimum livelihood. The government is required to file its response in the matter by June 1.
The petitioners – advocates Gaurav Tripathi and Ritesh Srivastava, had submitted that due to non-availability of basic infrastructure for employment in the State of Uttar Pradesh, lakhs of people had migrated to other States to earn their livelihood.
Underlining the miseries being faced by the migrant workers, the petitioners had submitted that neither the Central Government nor the state governments where the labourers were working, had made adequate arrangements for their movement and their families, following which the workers and their families were facing pathetic conditions on roads.
It was also pointed out that even at railway stations, no food was being made available and hence, the people travelling in ‘Shramik Special’ trains were facing starvation.
Though the High Court refused to take up this aspect since the Supreme Court is already seized of this matter in suo moto proceedings, it has asked the state government to file a report indicating the policy for providing medical facilities to the migrant workmen and their families. Another issue raised by the petitioners was that the unregulated movement of migrant labourers across states on foot, may also accelerate chances of spread of Coronavirus in major towns and rural areas. Expressing concern over this, the bench has asked the State Government to address this aspect also in its report.