PANCHAKSHRAYYA Vs. SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the present petition are that on 24/2/2007, the first respondent, the Senior Labour Inspector, along with other officials visited the business premises of the petitioner and having allegedly found that the petitioner had employed two child labourers viz., Ramanna and Sahanur, both aged 13 years as helpers in the garage, issued a notice dtd. 29/7/2008 to the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the said notice by contending, inter alia, that he had not employed any child labourers and had not committed any offence as alleged in the notice dtd. 29/7/2008, under the provisions of the Minimum of Wages Act, 1948 [Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1948'] . The petitioner examined himself and also examined two witnesses, who are the parents of the alleged child labourers. The respondent No.1 did not crossexamine the petitioner or the two other independent witnesses before the Authorized Officer. Vide order dtd. 26/12/2008, the petition filed under Sec. 20(3) of the Act, 1948 (Annexure-A to the writ petition), was dismissed by the Authorized Officer. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 [Hereinafter referred to as the 'Child Labour Act'] and vide order dtd. 3/3/2011 (Annexure-B to the writ petition), the respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.40,000.00 alleging that he had committed offences under Sec. 3 of the Child Labour Act. Subsequently, the respondent No.2- Assistant Labour Commissioner, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dtd. 21/5/2011 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), and the respondent No.4-Revenue Inspector issued a notice dtd. 17/10/2012 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) for recovery of amounts. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dtd. 3/3/2011 (Annexure-B), 21/5/2011 (Annexure-C) and 17/10/2012 (Annexure-D).

(3.) It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of the Labour Officer having recorded a finding, vide order dtd. 26/12/2008, under the provisions of the Act, 1948, to the effect that the Authority has failed to establish the relationship between the alleged child labourers and the petitioner, it was not open to the Senior Labour Inspector to initiate proceedings under the Child Labour Act. It is further contended that the official respondents not having challenged the order dtd. 26/12/2008, the initiation of proceedings under the Child Labour Act, is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.