P SOORYANARAYANA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Supreme Court considered at length the evil consequences of the continued employment of child labour notwithstanding the relevant constitutional and statutory Provisions in that regard. Referring to various constitutional and other statutory Provisions, convention on the rights of a child concluded by the u. n. general assembly and reports of various committees, the Supreme Court found that, notwithstanding all these safeguards against the abuse of child labour, children are continued to be subjected to hardship that should not have visited them at their tender age. While doing so, the Supreme Court, also took guidance from the Provisions of the child labour (prohibition and regulation) Act, 1986 ('act' for short) in order to give certain directions with reference to the Provisions of the said Act, in addition to giving other directions. while doing so, the Supreme Court also noticed as to how, notwithstanding the penal Provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act, the abuse has continued. It is then that the Supreme Court in m. C. Mehta v state of tamil nadu and others, gave certain directions. To give shape to the said directions, the Supreme Court, in paragraph 31 of its judgment, directed the states to take steps as listed in the said paragraph. The very first step was to require a survey to be made within six months in respect of the type of child labour referred to in course of the judgment. it is in pursuance of the said survey that, in all these cases, the labour inspector has informed the petitioners herein, who are employers in the cashew industries, telling them that in each of their establishments, a child or children is / are employed and as such they being 'offending employers', they are required to comply with the Supreme Court direction in that regard, the same, being as follows, as to be found in paragraph 27 of the judgment of the Supreme Court.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to consider the relevant Provisions of the Act, i may also refer to one more direction of the Supreme Court in the said decision. That could be found at paragraph 31 (9) of the said decision. the Supreme Court observes therein thus: "we should also like to observe that on the directions given being carried out, penal Provisions contained in the aforenoted 1986 act would be used where employment of a child labour, prohibited by the Act, would be found".

(3.) THE act sought to prohibit engagement of children in certain employments, and to regulate the conditions of work of children in certain other employments. Section 2 (ii) defines 'child' as meaning a person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age. Section 3 totally prohibits employment of children in certain occupations and processes and it provides that no child shall be employed or permitted to work in any of the occupations set forth in part a of the schedule to the act or in any workshop wherein any of the processes set forth in part b of the schedule to the act is carried on, the only concession as provided in the proviso to the said Section 3 being, the said prohibition would not apply to any workshop wherein any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to any school established by, or receiving assistance or recognition from, the government. while Section 3 thus totally prohibited employment of children in certain sectors, part iii of the act consisting of sections 6 to 13 deal with regulation of conditions of work of children in an establishment or class of establishments in which none of the occupations or processes referred to in Section 3 is carried on. In short, such establishments could be termed as non-prohibited establishments, and with regard to children employed in such establishments, part iii of the act took care of certain aspects with regard to welfare of children, since employment of children was permissible. That is how Section 7 deals with hours and period of work, Section 8 with weekly holidays, Section 9 notice to inspector, Section 10 empowering the inspector to decide disputed age of children, Section 11 requiring maintenance of register, Section 13 dealing with health and safety. in this context itself, I may refer to Section 17 of the Act, which provides that the appropriate government may appoint inspectors for purposes of securing compliance with the Provisions of the act. It further provided that any inspector so appointed shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code.