VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that notice dated 14-9-2009 issued under Sections 256 and 257 of the Land Revenue Act,1956 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Malpura, as also the notice dated 6-5-2010 issued by the Tehsildar Malpura be quashed and set aside, in so far as the said notices seek to recover Rs.1 lac from the petitioner as penalty for purported violation of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (herein after '1986 Act').

(2.) From the record of the case it transpires that the petitioner had earlier approached this court by way of writ petition No.6609/2005, whereupon vide order dated 29-8-2005, this court had held that in the event the petitioner were to challenge the order passed by the Labour Commissioner, based whereon recovery notice dated 8-8-2005 under challenge in the said petition was issued, he may do so within fifteen days. A DB Special Appeal No.866/2005 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29-8-2005, came to be dismissed on 5-7-2007 on the ground that the counsel was not in a position to show as to whether the order of the Labour Commissioner as required by order dated 29-8-2005 in writ petition No.6609/2005 had been challenged or not.

(3.) In pursuance of the order dated 29-8-2005 in writ petition No.6609/2005, the petitioner made representations to the Assistant Labour Commissioner Tonk on 8-8-2007, 12-10-2009, and 23-10-2009 denying his liability under the provisions of 1986 Act on any count whatsoever both factual and legal. However, the said representations were not addressed. It is not disputed by the counsel for respondents that there is no provision for appeal against the order of the Labour Commissioner passed under the provisions of 1986 Act, nor in fact such an order has yet been communicated to the petitioner. In fact, in the reply to writ petition no such order has been relied on by the respondents, nor any copy thereof has been annexed with the reply. Consequently compliance with the order dated 29-8-2005 in writ petition No.6609/2005 could only entail a representation to the Labour Commissioner.