High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Rajiv Kumar Anil Kumar Sudele v. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Jhansi & Others - WRIT - C No. - 32247 of 2000  RD-AH 14931 (3 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court NO. 35
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32247 of 2000
M/s. Rajiv Kumar Anil Kumar Sudele
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi and others.
Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.
In spite of stop order, no counter affidavit has been filed and, as such, Court is left with no other option but to dispose off the petition on the basis of the record available.
This petition is directed against an order dated 31.3.2000 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'Biri'. In pursuance of the direction of the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (AIR 1997 SC 699), large scale inspections were made in different parts of the country to ascertain whether any child of less than 14 years of age is employed against the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. In pursuance of inspection in Lalitpur, a 12 years aged girl was found engaged in rolling of 'Biris' and, therefore, a show cause notice dated 16.6.1999 was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply along with affidavit of Km. Shabnam and her mother and contended that no case is made out. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, by the impugned order dated 31.3.2000, rejected his objection and affirmed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
The only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that once the affidavit of Km. Shabnam and her mother had been filed and they were not engaged in the rolling of 'Biri', the respondents had no other option except to withdraw the show cause notice and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Both the two ladies have admitted that an inspection was made and they had signed the report but they had furnished explanation to the effect that only mother was engaged in rolling of 'Biri' and not the daughter and they were misled by the Labour Officials into signing the report. It is evident from the record that though the mother of Km. Shabnam admitted that she was engaged in rolling of 'Biri' but purposely did not disclose the name of the establishment for which she was doing that work. The Deputy Labour Commissioner had directed the petitioner to submit record with regard to payments to different employees along with other statutory records which he had to maintain under the relevant Labour laws. However, purposely the petitioner did not supply those documents and, therefore, rightly adverse inference had been drawn against him. There was no reason for the officials of the Labour Department to have named the petitioner especially when no animus or motives have been alleged. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, the impugned order is based on sufficient material and cannot be said to be perverse.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
The interim order is vacated and the money deposited in pursuance of the interim order is liable to be lifted by the Labour Authority, who will take further action in that regard. However, no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.