P RAMCHANDER RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed against the registering of C.C.No.110 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapally, Karimnagar District, under Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') alleging that the petn oner herein had employed one Chennamma, daughter of Sri Balaswamy, aged 12 years, as a child labour in his work spot in violation of Section 3 of the Act.

(2.) A complaint is filed by the Inspector, underChildLabour(Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 and Assistant Labour Officer, Peddapally, under Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner is a contractor of the works taken over by M/s. Teja Constructions at Peddakalvala Village, Peddapally Mandal, Karimnagar, carrying on the construction of Canal. The process of construction is declared as hazardous process as notified by the Government of India, vide Entry No.11 of Schedule Part-B of the Act. On 1-8-2002 at about 12.45 p.m. the Inspector, Karimnager, on an inspection of the work spot of the accused, found that a child, by name Chennamma, daughter of Sri Balaswamy, aged 12 years, had been engaged by the accused and found to be working in the work spot of the accused in violation of Section 3 of the Act. The accused was not present at the time of inspection in the work spot. The Inspector drafted an inspection report on the spot and sent to the District Labour Officer, Karimnager for taking further action. A demand notice was issued to the accused, by the Labour Officer, Karimnagar, under a copy to the Superintending Engineer, Godavari Valley Circle No.2, Siriram Sagar Project, Jagityal, with a direction to deposit Rs.20,000/-through a demand draft in favour of Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund of Karimnagar District, within seven days, from the date of receipt of notice issued on 2-8-2002. The notice was served on the accused by registered post with acknowledgement due on 2-9-2002. In reply to the notice, the accused submitted his reply dated 16-9-2002 contending that the child labour identified by the Inspector was having 15 years of age. But the Labour Officer did not convince with the age, therefore, requested the accused to produce the child labour along with documentary evidence in his office on 8-11 -2002 at 11 am. to conduct an enquiry in the matter and marked a copy of the notice to the Superintending Engineer. The Superintending Engineer also requested the accused to take action on the notice issued by the Labour Officer, Karimnagar, through his letter dated 13-11-2002. In continuation of his reply, the accused submitted a xerox copy of the paper clipping and requested to ponder the issue and advice him for necessary disposal. As the accused was not present at the time of inspection in the work spot and not responded to the notice issued, a show cause notice was issued to the accused for violation of Section 3 of the Act in October 2002 with a direction to show cause in writing as to why the penal action should not be taken against him. The notice was served on 22-1-2003 and no reply was received from the accused after lapse of the time mentioned in the show cause notice and no one came forward to take responsibility of violation aken place in the work spot, the contractor held responsible for the violation. The accused having failed to deposit the welfare fund as per demand notice issued, in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court, rendered himself liable to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the said Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund. The complainant, therefore, prays that the accused may be tried and dealt with according to law for contravention of Section 3 of the Act and rendered himself liable for punishment under Section 14 (1) of the Act and also prays that an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund may be recovered from the accused according to the direction of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.465 of 1996 in M.C. Mehata and Government of Tamilnadu and others.

(3.) The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and being aggrieved by the taking cognizance of the offence, the accused filed the present Criminal Petition challenging the validity of the prosecution.