ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The point raised in this appeal is whether the Inspector appointed under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") had the power to pass an order holding that the labour employed by the appellant were below the age-limit prescribed under the Act and to also direct the appellant to pay compensation.

3. The appellant was carrying on construction business in 1997. The Inspector, being Respondent 1 herein, visited the construction site of the appellant and issued a notice to the appellant on 1-4-1997 asking for an c explanation within seven days with regard to the employment of child labour (three persons to be exact) on the construction site. The appellant relied upon two certificates, one issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat and the other issued by the Medical Officer, PHC Palem certifying that the child labour were in fact above the age of 14 years when the labour was employed. The Inspector, however, by an order dated 16-2-2002 demanded that the appellant should have deposited Rs 20,000 per child with the Child Labour Rehabilitation and Welfare Fund. If the appellant failed to do so, action would be tak