Back
2008 Supreme(All) 1400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MR. JUSTICE RAKESH TIWARI
Satish Singh
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
C.M.W.P. No. 31807/2008
Decided On : July 8,2008
For Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Tripathi
For Respondents: S.C.
The age of child labour is to be determined by the medical authority under the Act through the Labour Enforcement Officer, and the medical certificate provided by the employer has no sanctity.
Headnote:
Child Labour - Employment of Child Labour - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice issued to the petitioner for employing child labour, emphasizing that the medical certificate provided by the employer has no sanctity and the age of the child labour is to be determined by the medical authority under the Act through the Labour Enforcement Officer. The court also highlighted the variance in age determination and refused to interfere in the matter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's shop was inspected, and it was found that the petitioner was employing child labour. The Deputy Labour Commissioner issued a notice directing the petitioner to deposit a specified amount for employing a child labour.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the order was not passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court emphasized that the medical certificate provided by the employer has no sanctity and the age of the child labour is to be determined by the medical authority under the Act through the Labour Enforcement Officer.
Issues: Employment of child labour, validity of the notice issued to the petitioner, opportunity of hearing
Ratio Decidendi: The medical certificate provided by the employer has no sanctity, and the age of the child labour is to be determined by the medical authority under the Act through the Labour Enforcement Officer. The court also highlighted the variance in age determination and refused to interfere in the matter.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel.
Shop of the petitioner was inspected by Labour Enforcement OfficerlIncharge. Child Labour, Sant Kabir Nagar on November 26, 2007. On inspection, it was found that the petitioner was employing child labour, consequently the Deputy Labour Commissioner, V.P. Lucknow issued a notice dated January 14, 2008 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as provided under Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 for employing a child labour read with G.O. and 15 judgment rendered by the Apex Court in M C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1997 SC 699 : (1996) 6 SCC 756: 1997-II-LLJ-724.
2. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the aforesaid recovery certificate has been issued without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and that according to medical certificate issued- by Additional Chief Medical Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar, age of respondent No.6, Mukesh is about 15 years.
3. From the inspection report appended as Annexure-l to the writ petition, it appears that Mukesh son of Chinkoo, resident of village Manjhariya Tiwari, Post Mehdawal, Sant Kabir Nagar was found working as helper in the petitioners shop. Thumb impression of the aforesaid child labour has also been taken by Labour inspector on the inspection note. It also appears that the petitioner refused to accept copy of the inspection report from the labour inspector and also refused to sign the same in token of receipt thereof. Hence, in the aforesaid backdrop, it cannot be said that the aforesaid order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Moreover a medical certificate of any doctor at the behest of the employer has no sanctity as the child labour is to be examined by the medical authority under the Act through the Labour Enforcement Officer.
5. It is a fact that even by a scientific approach the medical practitioner cannot determine the correct age of any person and there is always a variance of + - two years even in ossification test of bones for determination of age. If the doctor at the behest of the petitioner has examined the age of the child labour said to be employed by him as 15 years, his age could be anywhere in the range of 13 to 17 years. Therefore, it is not ruled out that Mukesh, the said child labour is not less than 14 years of age. F or the reasons Stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
