1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4220/1997 DLF Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 8th April, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. D.K.Parihar, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L.Jangid, Additional Advocate General. .... To prohibit engagement of children in certain employment and to regulate the conditions of work of children in certain other employments, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1986”) came into force on 23.12.1986. As per Section 3 of the Act of 1986, no child shall be employed or permitted to work in any of the occupation set forth in part-A of the Schedule or in any workshop wherein any of the process set forth in part-B of the schedule is carried on. Section 14 of the Act of 1986 prescribes various penalties for violation of provisions of Section 3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta v. State of Tamilnadu (AIR 1997 SC 699) issued certain directions for effective implementation of the Act of 1986. In light of the directions so given a meeting 2 was held on 15.3.1997 under chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to formulate a scheme and time bound programme to complete the survey relating to use of child labour in prohibited establishments. Under the scheme so formulated the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran (respondent No.2) by order Ex.1 dated NIL instructed the petitioner to deposit a compensation of Rs.20,000/- as on an inspection of the petitioner establishment, a child namely Sharda son on Shri Pukharam Regar, aged 13 years, was found working in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1986. The authorised signatory of the petitioner company under letter dated 29.10.1997 conveyed to the respondent No.2 that no services of the child labour were utilised by the company and as such there was no violation of Section 3 of the Act aforesaid. The authorised signatory also questioned application of the Act of 1986 upon it. However, as a specific direction was already made by the order Ex.1 to deposit a compensation in a tune of Rs.20,000/-, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court to challenge the same. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that before imposing penalty of compensation of Rs.20,000/- no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and as such the penalty imposed is bad in eye of law. 3 In reply to the writ petition the stand taken by the respondents is that as a consequent to the scheme framed by the Government of Rajasthan a survey of the petitioner company was conducted on 30.4.1997 and one child named Sharda was found working in the establishment, therefore, an order was issued to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation that was required to be paid to the child employed with the company. From examination of record it appears that while inspecting the company as well as while imposing penalty i.e. of compensation, no opportunity was given to the employer to put its version. It is well settled that no penal action can be taken unilaterally. If the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on inspection of the petitioner company, found any violation of Section 3 of the Act of 1986, it was obligatory upon him to inform the petitioner in this regard and also to provide an opportunity of hearing before imposing a penalty or to make an order for compensation. The order impugned in the instant case is apparently in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order Ex.1 dated NIL passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaitaran, directing the petitioner to 4 deposit a compensation in a tune of Rs.20,000/- is declared bad and, therefore, the same is quashed. No order to cost. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.