HAYATH KHAN Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MY heart bleeds for the Child Labour in terms of the facts of this case. 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 the 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.

(2.) 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 SZA khureshi, Learned AGA appears for respondents.

(3.) 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.