Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the competent authority under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (henceforth, 'Act, 1986, Raipur issuing recovery certificate against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- in each writ petition. In the matter of M.C. Mehta Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1996) 6 SCC 756, while dealing with the issue of abolition of child labour the Supreme Court constituted a Committee, obtained a report and thereafter held that every employer who is found engaging a child labour must be asked to pay compensation for every child employed in contravention of the provisions of the Act, a sum of Rs. 20,000/-; and the Inspectors whose appointment is visualized by section 17 to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act, should do this job. The Inspector appointed under section 17 was directed to see that for each child employed in violation of the provisions of the Act, the employer concerned pays Rs. 20,000/- which sum would be deposited in a fund to be known as Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund. The fund so generated shall form corpus whose incom