SATISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel. Shop of the petitioner was inspected by labour Enforcement Officer/incharge. 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, U. 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 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-1 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 petitioner's 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.