Back
In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore
R. Gururajan, J.
Hayathkhan
V.
The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Regional Office, Belgaum And Others
Writ Petition No. 20439 of 2005 (L-WC).
11th November, 2005
Cases Referred: 1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594. Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (ILO) - Child Labour - Child Labour -Arresting the practice -Organisation s focus -Issues covered. [R. Gururajan, J]: It has focussed on the following issues: 1. Prohibition of Child Labour; 2. Protecting Child Labour at work; 3. Attacking the basic cause of Child Labour; 4. Helping children to adopt to future work; 5. Protecting the Children of working parents.
Cases Referred: 1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594. Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699.
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - Section 14 - Powers of Inspector - Section 14 -Compensation -Inspector imposed compensation for employing and child aged about eleven years to be deposited towards District Child Labour Rehabilation and Welfare Fund -Sustainability. See, Section 3.
Cases Referred: 1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594. Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699.
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - Section 16 - Imposition of Compensation - Section 16 -Imposition of Compensation -Contravention of the provisions -Order made by Inspector -Sustainability. See, Section 3.
Cases Referred: 1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594. Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699.
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - Section 3 - Compensation - Section 3 -Compensation -Inspector imposed compensation for employing and child aged about eleven years to be deposited towards District Child Labour Rehabilation and Welfare Fund -Sustainability -Should such an order to be made by jurisdictional Magistrate? Civil liability of the offender arises as per directions of Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 699 -Hence, order impugned cannot be found fault with. [R. Gururajan, J]: The impugned order cannot be found fault with in the light of this judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ordered compensation in terms of the directions contained in para 27 of the judgment and that cannot be confused with levy of fine by way of penalty under Section 17 of the Act. Penal fine is different from compensation. The said compensation is provided in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court and it is therefore legally acceptable. Then argument in terms of Sections 14 and 16 does not appeal since that stands on a different footing. The Civil liability to pay compensation arises in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU (AIR 1997 SC 699) which has created new rights and obligations enforceable by law in terms of directions. In these circumstances the finding given in this judgment is only referable to compensation. The criminal liability in the event of any proceedings has to be decided on its merits.
Cases Referred:1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594. Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699 .
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - Section 3 - Compensation - Section 3 -Compensation -Inspector imposed compensation for employing and child aged about eleven years to be deposited towards District Child Labour Rehabilation and Welfare Fund -Sustainability -Should such an order to be made by jurisdictional Magistrate? Civil liability of the offender arises as per directions of Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 699 -Hence, order impugned cannot be found fault with. [R. Gururajan, J]: The impugned order cannot be found fault with in the light of this judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ordered compensation in terms of the directions contained in para 27 of the judgment and that cannot be confused with levy of fine by way of penalty under Section 17 of the Act. Penal fine is different from compensation. The said compensation is provided in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court and it is therefore legally acceptable. Then argument in terms of Sections 14 and 16 does not appeal since that stands on a different footing. The Civil liability to pay compensation arises in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU (AIR 1997 SC 699) which has created new rights and obligations enforceable by law in terms of directions. In these circumstances the finding given in this judgment is only referable to compensation. The criminal liability in the event of any proceedings has to be decided on its merits.
Cases Referred:1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594. Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699 .
Child Labour
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (ILO)
Child Labour -Arresting the practice -Organisation s focus -Issues covered.
[R. Gururajan, J]: It has focussed on the following issues: 1. Prohibition of Child Labour; 2. Protecting Child Labour at work; 3. Attacking the basic cause of Child Labour; 4. Helping children to adopt to future work; 5. Protecting the Children of working parents.
Cases Referred: 1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594.
Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699.
Compensation
CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986 - Section 3 -Compensation -Inspector imposed compensation for employing and child aged about eleven years to be deposited towards District Child Labour Rehabilation and Welfare Fund -Sustainability -Should such an order to be made by jurisdictional Magistrate? Civil liability of the offender arises as per directions of Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 699 -Hence, order impugned cannot be found fault with.
[R. Gururajan, J]: The impugned order cannot be found fault with in the light of this judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ordered compensation in terms of the directions contained in para 27 of the judgment and that cannot be confused with levy of fine by way of penalty under Section 17 of the Act. Penal fine is different from compensation. The said compensation is provided in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court and it is therefore legally acceptable. Then argument in terms of Sections 14 and 16 does not appeal since that stands on a different footing. The Civil liability to pay compensation arises in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU (AIR 1997 SC 699) which has created new rights and obligations enforceable by law in terms of directions. In these circumstances the finding given in this judgment is only referable to compensation. The criminal liability in the event of any proceedings has to be decided on its merits.
Cases Referred:1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594.
Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699
Powers of Inspector
CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986 - Section 14 -Compensation -Inspector imposed compensation for employing and child aged about eleven years to be deposited towards District Child Labour Rehabilation and Welfare Fund -Sustainability. See, Section 3.
Prohibition
CHILD LABOUR - Prohibition -Legislations in India.
[R. Gururajan, J]: Section 67 of the Factories Act, 1948 prohibits employment of young children. Section 24 of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 provides that no child who has not completed his twelfth year shall be required or allowed to work in any plantation. Section 109 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951 prohibits employment of person under fifteen years of age. Section 45 of the Mines Act provides that no Child shall be employed in any mine, nor shall any Child be allowed to be present in any part of a mine which below ground or in any (open cast working) in which any mining operation is being carried on, Section 21 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 provides that no Child shall be required or allowed to work in any capacity in any motor transport undertaking. Section 3 of the Apprentices Act also prohibits employment of fourteen years of age. Section 24 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (conditions of employment) Act 1966 provides that no child shall be required or allowed to work in any industrial premises.
Cases Referred: 1998(1) Kar. L. J. 191; 1998 SC 2502; 1985 (3) SCC 594.
Relied: AIR 1997 SC 699.
My heart bleeds for the child labour in terms of the facts of this case.
2. Petitioner is running a motor-cycle shop in the name and style of Best Service Centre. Second respondent visited the shop of the petitioner and inspected the same on 18-7-2003. He reported that petitioner has employed child labour, He registered a case alleging contravention of Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 alleging that petitioner has employed child labour called Khaza-m-Shekh aged about 11 years. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why compensation should not be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application seeking for permission to cross-examine with regard to the report, which was allowed, Petitioner filed his written arguments. First respondent thereafter has chosen to pass an order imposing Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to be deposited to the District Child Labour Rehabilitation and Welfare Fund in terms of Annexure-G, dated 31-3-2005. A recovery notice was also issued in terms of Annexure-H, dated 30-7-2005. Petitioner in these circumstances is before me.
3. I made a specific request to Sri Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel to assist the Court in the case on hand, in the absence of the child labour being a party to the proceedings. Sri S.Z.A. Khureshi, learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondents.
4. Sri Sheelvant, learned Counsel would basically argue that no compensation can be awarded in a matter like this in the absence of any order at the hands of a Magistrate, in terms of the provisions of the Act. He would also say that even otherwise, the material on record would reveal of no violation by the petitioner on the facts of this case.
5. Per contra, Sri Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel would say that the present proceedings are initiated pursuant to the proceedings of the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu and Others. He would also invite my attention to several judgments to say that this Court has to take note of constitutional goal in the matter of meaningful life in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would say that Child Labour is prevalent and engagement of child labour is to be arrested strictly, as otherwise, the laudable object in terms of the constitution cannot be achieved. He wants the petition to be dismissed.
6. Sri S.Z.A. Khureshi, learned Additional Government Advocate would strongly rely on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in 1998 All. L.J. 2502.
7. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record.
8. International Labour Organisation has felt that there should be international guidelines by which the employment of children under a certain age could be regulated in industrial undertakings. It suggested that the minimum age of work be 12 years. International Labour Organisation has been playing an important role in the process of gradual elimination of child labour and to protect child from industrial exploitation. It has focussed on the following issues:
1. Prohibition of child labour;
2. Protecting child labour at work;
3. Attacking the basic cause of child labour;
4. Helping children to adopt to future work;
5. Protecting the children of working parents.
9. Various legislations have been brought into force to arrest child exploitation.
10. Section 67 of the Factories Act, 1948 prohibits employment of young children. Section 24 of the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 provides that no child who has not completed his twelfth year shall be required or allowed to work in any plantation. Section 109 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 prohibits employment of person under fifteen years of age. Section 45 of the Mines Act, 1952 provides that no child shall be employed in any mine, nor shall any child be allowed to be present in any part of a mine which below ground or in any (open cast working) in which
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
