RAJ KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is challenging the order by which penalty has been imposed of Rs. 20,000/- on the petitioner for employing a child labour Mohd. Ali S/o Habib Ali, resident of Sanodha as per order P. 2. In the order itself the age of Mohd. All is mentioned to be 14 years. Petitioner challenges the impugned order P. 2 on the ground that enquiry has not been conducted. Reply submitted by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration and recovery is being made of the penalty.

(2.) RETURN has been filed adopting the return filed in W. P. No. 4314/1997 (Prem Chand Sitaram Sahu v. State of M. P.) pointing out that penalty has been rightly imposed. In view of the report submitted by Inspector, the order is proper and no interference is called for.

(3.) THE Apex Court in M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699 : 1996 (6) SCC 756 : 1997-II-LLJ-724 had laid down that children aged about 14 years cannot be employed in any factory or mine or other hazardous work and they must be given education as mandated by Article 45 of the Constitution and interpreted in Unni Krishnan J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178 : 1993 (1) SCC 645. It is the duty of the employer to comply with the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. Section 14 of the Act has provided for punishment up to one year, minimum being 3 months or fine up to Rs. 20,000/-, minimum being Rs. 10,000/- or with both to one who employs or permits any child to work in contravention of provisions of Section 3. The Apex Court considered the mandate of the Articles 24, 39 (e), (f), 41, 45, 47 and held: