RAHUL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PER RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel representing respondents No. 1 to 4. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Inspector appointed under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, inspected the establishment of the petitioner allegedly in his absence. A show-cause notice was thereafter issued on April 24, 2008 to the petitioner by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, meerut for depositing Rs. 20,000/- having allegedly contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act or filing his objection within 15 days.

(2.) THE petitioner filed his objection on may 9, 2008 disputing the age of the child labour stating that the age of alleged child labour has been incorrectly recorded by the labour inspector and he is above 14 years of age as such neither is any contravention of the provisions of the Act nor is covered under the definition of child labour as given in the Act. Thereafter the Dy. Labour Commissioner, meerut has now passed the impugned order dated May 26, 2008 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,000/- in respect of the aforesaid child Act.

(3.) AFTER going through the provision of section 10 and Rule 17 framed under the Child labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, the Standing counsel has fairly stated that the impugned order for payment of Rs. 20. /-has, been issued with first getting the age of the alleged child labour verified by the prescribed medical Authority.