BALMUKUND CONCASTLTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the communication dt. 14.12.98 (Annexure 2) by the appropriate authority (the Sub - Divisional Officer, Danapur), under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '), whereby the petitioners have been directed to deposit a total sum of Rs. 80, 000/ -, i.e. @ Rs. 20,000/ - per child for the four children working in its factory in violation of the provisions of the Act and the direction in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta V/s. State of Tamilnadu (AIR 1997 SC 699).

(2.) PETITIONER no. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and production of steel items at Bihta, district Patna, and petitioner no. 2 is its General Manager. Section 2 (ii) of the Act defines 'child ' to mean a person who has not completed his fourteenth years of age. Section 10 is set out herein below: '' "10. Disputes as to age. ''If any question arises between an Inspector and an occupier as to the age of any child who is employed or is permitted to work by him in an establishment, the question shall, in the absence of a certificate as to the age of such child granted by the prescribed medical authority, be referred by the Inspector for decision to the prescribed medical authority." The Act in substance prohibits employment of children below the age of fourteen years in factories. The Supreme Court in its judgment in M.C. Mehta (supra) noticed that the provisions of the Act were not being enforced in a satisfactory manner in the country. Therefore, it formulated a scheme, inter alia, for creation of a child labour rehabiiitation - cum -welfare fund which would be utilized in the manner indicated in the Judgment and the employer employing a child in the provisions of the Act shall have to contribute a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - per child.

(3.) RANJEET Kumar, 13 years (approx) Accordingly, the appropriate authority issued the impugned letter dt. 14.12.98 (Annexure 2), calling upon the petitioners to deposit a total sum of Rs. 80,000/ - to the aforesaid fund. Instead of depositing the amount, the petitioners addressed their communication dt. 26.12,98 (Annexure -4), objecting to the validity of the said order dt. 14.12.98 (Annexure 2). It was stated in this letter that the children were of fifteen years or more therefore requested that the order may be withdrawn. It appears that the respondent authorities refused to uphold the objection of the petitioners and initiated certificate proceeding under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, which has been registered as Certificate Case No. 1 of 1999 -2000, pending before the Certificate Officer, Danapur. That prompted the petitioners to prefer the present writ petition. 4. This writ petition was earlier taken up by this Court on 10.11.2000 on which date the respondent authorities were directed to have the four children examined by the Medical Board and place the same on record. Three out of the four children have since been examined by the Medical Board whose reports are on record which I shall deal with hereinafter. According to the petitioners, they could not locate Arun Kumar and were unable to forward him to the respondent authorities for examination by the Medical Board.