SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing of order dated 4.7.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.L.A. Case No. 262(A)/2005 whereby and where under he took cognizance of the offence under section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)Act,(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' ).

(2.) IT appears that an official complaint was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by the Labour Superintendent, Dhanbad alleging therein that on 25.2.2005 at about 2.20 p.m. the Brick-kiln of the petitioner, namely, M/S. G.K.A. Itta Bhatta was inspected by the Labour Superintendent as per the provisions of the Act and found that in the aforesaid Brick-kiln one child labour, namely, Lalan Manjhi, was present. It is stated that the working of a child labour in Brick-kiln is contravention of section 3 of the Act. It is also stated that as per Rules framed under the Act, the register and notice board was not maintained by the establishment. It is also alleged that the Labour Inspector was also not given any notice regarding the employment of child labour. It is stated that after the inspection , show cause notice was given to the petitioner for removing the defect and also for production of papers and registers for inspection, but the petitioner has not complied the direction given in the said show cause notice and his reply is unsatisfactory. Accordingly the present complaint was filed in the court of CJM with request to take cognizance of the offence under section 14 of the Act.

(3.) IT is submitted that in response to the show cause notice the petitioner filed a show cause, wherein he had stated that the said child labour, namely, Lalan Manjhi, was not working in his Brick-kiln. It is stated that the said child labour is the brother-in-law of one Lito Manjhi, who is working in his Brick-kiln and the said Lalan Manjhi was residing with him. It is further stated that father of Lalan Manjhi and said Lito Manjhi had sworn an affidavit that Lalan Manjhi is residing with Lito Manjhi and not working in brick-kiln. It is also submitted that the said Lalan Manjhi was a student of Siksha Abhiyan Vidaylaya , Bathanbari, Nirsa. It is submitted that in proof of aforesaid contention, a certificate issued by Siksha Mitra of the school and also the result of the said Lalan Manjhi has been filed for perusal of this Court. It is also submitted that from the perusal of aforesaid document, it is clear that the said Lalan Manjhi was not working in the Brick-kiln of the petitioner and therefore the inspection report of the concerned Labour. Superintendent is against the facts of the case. Accordingly, it is submitted that in view of the documents submitted by the petitioner, no offence under section 14 of the Act is made out. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order taking cognizance is bad.