BALEE MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER before Court seeks quashing of the recovery proceedings initiated under the order dated 29.09.2008 as well as the recovery certificate dated 31.01.2009. Such proceedings have been initiated qua the penalty for employment of a child labour in the petitioner's unit. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition contends that the alleged order dated 29.09.2008 was never served upon the writ-petitioner nor he was afforded any opportunity to controvert the allegations made in respect of employment of child labour. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 29.09.2008 and the consequential recovery dated 31.01.2009 are illegal. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that it would be in the interest of justice that this Court may require the Deputy Labour Commissioner to afford an opportunity of hearing to the writ- petitioner and to determine his liability thereafter. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. From the document brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition dated 29.09.2008, it appears that an inspection of the petitioner's unit was made by the officers of the Labour Department on 11.09.2007 and a child labour by the name of Salman was found employed in the petitioner's unit. The petitioner was directed to show cause within one week of the said notice as to why penalty proceedings be not initiated. PETITIONER contends that such notice was never served upon him and, therefore, the recovery proceedings are illegal. In view of the aforesaid fact, interest of substantial justice would be served by providing as follows : PETITIONER may treat the demand notice dated 31.01.2009 as a show cause notice and he may submits his reply within three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, raising all such pleas as he may be advised. The Deputy Labour Commissioner shall thereafter consider the reply furnished by the petitioner and shall proceed to pass a reasoned speaking order determining the liability of the writ petitioner if any, qua the issue of employment of child labour preferably within four weeks from the date the reply is so filed. Initially for a period of seven weeks from today, recovery initiated under the Citation dated 31.01.2009 shall remain in abeyance and shall thereafter abide the orders to be passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, as indicated above. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.