(a) Equal right of men and women to adequate means of livelihood.
(b) Distribution of ownership and control of the material resources of the community to the common good.
(c) To ensure that the economic system should not result in concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.
(d) Equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
(e) To protect health and strength of workers and tender age of children and to ensure that they are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocation unsuited to their age or strength.
(f) That children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
In M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tama Nadu. AIR 1997 S.C. 699, the Supreme Court has held that children below the age of 12 years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry or mines or other works. Mr. M.C. Mehta had brought a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court and had told the court about the plight of children engaged In Shivakashl Cracker Factories as to how the constitutional rights of these children was being grossly violated and had requested the court to issue appropriate directions to the Governments to take steps to abolish child labour.
The Supreme Court Issued certain reformative directions regarding welfare of children to the Governments and observed that although this job is a big one but not as to prove either unwieldy or burdensome.
The financial implication on the government will be cumbersome so as to prove damper because the money after all will be used to build up a better India. The verdict of the Supreme Court has given a new hope to the children of the country and a beginning has been made to honour the mandate contained In Articles 24, 39(e) and (f), 41, 45, and 47 of the Constitution.
The “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b), covers the land held by private owners also. Such private land can be acquired by the Government for public purposes such as, for developing and constructing house buildings and providing shopping complexes, parks, roads, drains and play grounds, etc.
Articles 38 and 39 embody the provisions of jurisprudential doctrine of “distributive justice.” The Constitution permits and even directs the State to administer what may be termed as “distributive justice.” The concept of “distributive justice” connotes the removal of economic inequality rectifying the injustice from dealings and transactions between unequals in the society.
In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Abu Kavar Bai, (1984) 1 S.C.C. 516, the Supreme Court has held that the validity of a law enacted for the nationalisation of transport services in the State on the ground that it was for giving effect to the directive principles contained in Article 39(b) and (c). A nationalisation scheme meant for the purpose of distribution or preventing the concentration of wealth must have sufficient nexus to attract the operation of Article 39(b) and (c). Hence, the Tamil Nadu Act is a valid one and it subseries the need of nationalisation policy of the State.
Further, Parliament enacted Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, in pursuance to the provision of Article 39(d). The directive contained in Article 39(d) and the Act passed under it, can be judicially enforceable by the Court.
In Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879, the Supreme Court held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” though not a fundamental right, but certainly it is a constitutional goal and therefore capable of being enforced through constitutional remedies under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is equally applicable to persons employed on a daily wage basis. In Surender Singh vs. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, AIR 1986 S.C. 534, the Supreme Court has held that the daily wage employees are also entitled for the same wages as other permanent employees in the department employed to do the identical work.
Further, in State of Haryana vs. Rajpal Sharma, AIR 1997 S.C. 449, it has been held that the teachers employed in privately managed aided schools in State of Haryana, are entitled to the same salary and dearness allowances as are paid to the teachers employed in Government schools.
In this way, we find that the Supreme Court has tried to enforce the Directive Principles of the State Policy to be followed by the State for securing economic justice to the people in the country in judicious way.