SHRAMIK DASTKAR VIKAS SAMITI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Shramik Bastkar Vikas Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner samiti for short) to quash the notices dated NIL (Ex. 3 to 6) and prayed that respondents be restrained not to recover Rs. 80,000/- which is Rs. 20,000/- for each child from the petitioner.

(2.) As per the facts of the case, the petitioner Samiti is registered society bearing registration no.187/Jodhpur/1994-95 under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and as per averments in the writ petition, the society is imparting training in Dast-kar to increase efficiency for production in the field. The respondents issued notices in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamilnadu reported in AIR 1997 SC 699 in which directions were issued for implementing the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act,1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986 for short). In the Act of 1986 there is Section 14, which provides minimum of penalty of 3 months imprisonment and fine to pay Rs. 25,000/- and under Section 16 of the Act it is provided that the offence under the Act shall be tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The respondent no.2 served notices dated NIL in which it is mentioned that on 29.4.1997 while inspecting the petitioner society, the inspection team found two child labourers working. The names of those child labourers are Ku. Sumitra, Ku. Nathki, Ku. Manju and Ku. Kaushaliya. The petitioner submitted a representation against the said notice in which it is submitted that the petitioner samiti is exempted from the provisions of the Act of 1986 because the petitioner samiti is getting aid from the Central Wool Development Board, Ministry of Textile, Government of India to the tune of Rs. 1 lac and 2 lacs for training in carpet wearing in center at Samdari. To prove the said fact, the petitioner samiti placed on record Annex.8 and 9 whereby aid was granted by the Central Government of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices Annex.3 to 6 are illegal and without jurisdiction because the petitioner samiti is imparting carpet training in the Center which is not covered by the schedule and exempted under Section 3 of the Act of 1986. Further, it is submitted that the impugned notice are illegal because these are in violation of principles of natural justice because before imposing of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for each child, the opportunity of hearing including to lead evidence is not given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices issued to the petitioner Samiti deserves to be quashed on the ground that petitioner Samiti is not covered by the schedule and exempted under Section 3 of the Act of 1986.