HARIA GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY Vs. MAMLATDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In each of the petitions, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the orders dated 4th July, 1997 and 8th July, 1997 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Gandhidham, Kutch and the Mamlatdar respectively, asking the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for each child labour employed by them, are before this Court with a submission that the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Mamlatdar acted absolutely illegally in issuing such directions.

(2.) The Mamlatdar-cum-Ex Officio Labour Inspector made inspections on 2nd May, 1997 in the factory premises of the petitioners, M/s. Anjar Ginning & Pressing Company and M/s. Haria Ginning & Pressing Factory. After recording the names of as many as nine persons in Special Civil Application No.6190 of 1997 and ten persons in Special Civil Application No.6191 of 1997, he observed that each of the owners/management of the factories was engaging young boys below 14 years of age and as their engagement was contrary to the provisions of the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), each was liable to he proceeded with. It was directed that Rs.20,000/- for each child labour be deposited with the Assistant Labour Commissioner or in the alternative, a legal action would be taken against them. The petitioners, vide their replies dated 14th May, 1997 in Special Civil Application No.6190 of 1997 and dated 17th May, 1997 in Special Civil Application No.6191 of 1997, submitted that they had not violated any provisions of the Act. M/s. Haria Ginning & Pressing Factory submitted that four persons, namely, Hasinaben, Lilaben, Ratanba and Radhiben, were above 14 years of age, while five other children had come to serve the tiffin to the labours/workmen. They submitted that they had not committed, any wrong. M/s. Anjar Ginning & Pressing; Factory submitted that they had not committed any wrong, inspection note was wrong and the persons, who were not employed, were illegal shown to have been engaged as labours. In Special Civil Application No.6191 of 1997, the Mamlatdar vide his order dated 8th July, 1997, ordered that the explanation submitted by the employer/establishment cannot be accepted in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court and a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- would be recovered. In Special Civil Application No.6190 of 1997, it was ordered that no reasonable defence has been submitted and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court, recovery has to be made. In Special Civil Application No.6191 of 1997, no counter-affidavit has been filed, but, counter-affidavit has been filed in Special Civil Application No.6190 of 1997. The affidavit is of one S. R. Bodal, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gandhinagar. In the said affidavit, in paragraph 6, the author of the affidavit has stated as under:

(3.) Shri Mankad, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that without making any inquiry or without affording any opportunity to the petitioners, the respondents could not direct recovery simply on the strength of the judgement of the Supreme Court. He also submitted that the reply to the show-cause notice could not be treated to be the defence because present was a case where oral evidence ought to have been led in view of the fact that the petitioners had filed certain affidavits before the authority in support of their defence. He also referred to Section 14 of the Act to contend that either one should stand convicted or in an inquiry, he should be held guilty of committing violation of the provisions of the Act.