ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The vexed question in the instant petition amongst others is whether 'Child Labour Compensation' can be recovered from the alleged employer of child labour to enforce obedience to the rights and liabilities stemming from the Judgment of the Apex Court M. C. Mehta's case, M. C. Mehta v. State of T. N. and others, AIR 1997 SC 699, merely on the report of the Inspector appointed under Section 17 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (In Short the 'Act') without an opportunity of hearing being given to the alleged employer. It is on this line that the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing firstly, the notices/orders dated 9.7.1997 issued/passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexures-4, 5. 6 and 7) ; secondly, the Government Order dated 5.6.1998 (Annexure-12) by which the Addl/Deputy/Asstt. Commissioner has been ceded power to issue recovery certificate for recovery of compensation payable by the 'offending employer' as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (supra) and thirdly, the recovery proceedings initiated by the Collector. Mathura, against the petitioner in pursuance of the recovery certificates dated 1.7.98 issued by the respondent No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 3,20,000, Rs. 4,00,000, Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 2,00,000.

(2.) The facts shorn of unnecessary details are that on 30.3.95, the Inspector appointed under the Act made an inspection of the petitioner's company and gave his report, the text of which was that there was no child labour found working in the petitioner's 'Establishment'. Subsequently, on 28.7.95, the petitioner came to be served with four notices from the office of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner the substance of which is that as a result of Inspection/survey conducted at petitioner's establishment on 9.4.97, 13.4.97 and 15.4.97, child labours listed in the notices, were found working and accordingly, he was called upon to pay compensation referred to in the notices within 15 days for rehabilitation of the child labours. The petitioner, it is alleged, entered a reply, abjuring therein the engagement/appointment of any child labour in his establishments and attributed issuance of notice to reasons stemming from disinformation.

(3.) The petitioner, it may be pointed out. Is the Director of M/s. Oriental Rugs (P) Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of hand-made woollen/synthetic carpets, Rugs, Druggists, Namdahs and hand-made silk carpets. The question brought to bear in the present petition is that the petitioner did not enlist the services of any 'child labour' in respect of whom he has been exacted to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per child labour. The other ancillary questions articulated in the petitions are that the liability to pay compensation for the rehabilitation of child labour, enlarged into a mandate by the decision of the Apex Court in M. C. Media's case, will come into play only after the employment in contravention of the Act is brought home and the employer is held to be an offending employer. The substance of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that until conclusion of the criminal proceeding, if any launched under the provisions of the Act, the question of recovery of compensation from the owner of the 'Establishment', 'Shop', or 'Factory', as the case may be, does not come into play. In repudiation, the learned standing counsel submitted that the liability to pay compensation stems from the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta's case and in view of the observations made in the judgment. It is for the 'Inspector appointed' under Section 17 to "see that for each child employed in violation of the provisions of the Act, the concerned employer pays Rs. 20,000 which sum could be deposited in a fund to be known as 'Child Labour Rehabllitatlon-cum-welfare fund'. The aforestated observation made in M. C. Mehta's case clearly enjoins a duty upon the Inspector to adjudicate factual controversy. If any, raised by the employer.