High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Salim v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 29281 of 2007  RD-AH 11855 (12 July 2007)
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Copy of the letter no. 21099 K.B.Ba.Shram dated 02.11.2006 has been produced today before this Court. The same is only a notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner requiring the petitioner to explain as to how a child labour has been employed. On the same date another letter bearing no. 21099 dated 02.11.2006 has been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his reply within 15 days qua the employment of Amit Chaurasia.
Counsel for the petitioner refers to the reply submitted thereto vide his letter dated 25.5.2007 which has been duly received in the office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, (Anneuxre-4 to the writ petition). It is stated that without considering the explanation and without disclosing reasons for rejecting the explanation given penalty under the Child Labour (Prevention and Regulation) Act, 1986 has been levied. The respondents have also initiated recovery proceedings for the penalty amounts of Rs. 21,000/- as arrears of land revenue.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
There is nothing on record to establish as to whether the explanation given by the petitioner has been considered, nor the orders dated 17.5.2007 discloses any reasons for initiation of recovery proceedings Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The recovery in pursuance to the order dated 17.5.2007 is hereby quashed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The Assistant Labour Commissioner is directed to consider the explanation furnished by the petitioner in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing and with due regard to the provisions of the the Child Labour (Prevention and Regulation) Act, 1986. The aforesaid exercise may be complete within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.