Adherence to the prescribed procedure for determining child labour under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 is crucial for enforcing penalties.

Pradeep Nandrajog, S.P. Sharma, JJ.

The appellant was aggrieved by notices/penalties levied on the basis that labour employed by the appellant was a child labour and as per the decision of the Supreme Court Rs. 20,000/- per child labour was liable to be paid by the appellant.

2. The grievance of the appellant was that the Inspector appointed under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 was not authorised to decide whether the labour working was child labour and as per Section 16(2) of the Act a procedure was prescribed. The prescribed procedure was that the Inspector concerned had to produce the persons stated to be a child before the competent authority as per Section 10. The said competent authority had to certify the age as per Rule 17 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Rules, 1988. The competent authority was the appropriate medical authority notified in different States.

3. In the instant case, said procedure was not followed. The person working as labour, stated to be a child, which fact was denied by the appellant were not produced before the appropriate medical authority.

4. We note that on this reasoning vide order dated April 26, 2007, impugned notices dated August 31, 2005 and September 25, 2005 was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in the instant appeal.

5. We allow the appeal and quash the impugned notice dated August 31, 2005 and September 21, 2005.

6. It would be doubtful whether with passage of time, the respondents would be able to identify the persons working as labour and stated to be children as of today. But if the respondents can identify the persons and can produce them before the competent authority, the competent authority would determine the age as of the year 2005. If opined to be minor/children as of the year 2005, the authorities under the Act can proceed in accordance with law. Alternatively, we note that the appellant is facing a prosecution on a FIR lodged. If in said proceedings it is found that the persons working in the factory were children, the impugned demands could be revived and enforced against the appellant.

7. No costs.