GOvernment back-to-work schemes, criticised as forced labour, have been ruled lawful.

A judge rejected jobless graduate Cait Reilly's claim that a scheme requiring her to work for free at a Poundland discount store breached human rights laws banning slavery.

Mr Justice Foskett, sitting at the High Court in London, said that "characterising such a scheme as involving or being analogous to slavery or forced labour seems to me to be a long way from contemporary thinking".

Miss Reilly, 23, from Birmingham, and 40-year-old unemployed HGV driver Jamieson Wilson, from Nottingham, both claimed the unpaid schemes they were on violated article four of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits forced labour and slavery.

The judge said both Miss Reilly and Mr Wilson were each entitled to a declaration that there had been breaches of the 2011 jobseeker's allowance regulations in their cases.

Mistakes had been made in notifying Ms Reilly about the rules of the Work Academy Scheme. Mr Wilson had been given inadequate notice about the Community Action Programme. The judge said neither scheme was contrary to article four, and the errors did not invalidate jobseeker's allowance rules.

The ruling will come as a relief to the Government. Had it lost yesterday's legal challenge, it was possible all back-to-work schemes would have been invalid.

The judge said: "Whether the problems in Miss Reilly's case and Mr Wilson's case were merely teething problems remains to be seen."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: "We are delighted, although not surprised, the judge agrees our schemes are not forced labour. Comparing our initiatives to slave labour is not only ridiculous but insulting to people facing real oppression.

"Thousands of young people across the country are taking part in our schemes and gaining the vital skills and experience needed to help them enter the world of work."