THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.576 of 1998 Dated:18.02. 2010 Between: Sri Annapurna Packing Material Industrial Estate, Dowlaiswaram, rep., by its Proprietor K.Adinarayana, S/o.Peda Abbai, R/o.Sambhunagar, Rajahmundry .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.576 of 1998 ORDER: The order impugned in this Writ Petition is the notice in Rc.No.B/1974/97, dated 25.10.1997 issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Rajahmundry, to the petitioner herein informing him that in a survey conducted on 09.05.1997 it was found that two children aged 12 and 13 years respectively were employed in the process of packing, which was prohibited under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’). Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. MEHTA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS[1], the respondents directed the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for each child. Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance upon an earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.33705 of 1997 dated 26.07.2006, wherein a similar demand notice was under challenge. In the said judgment, this Court observed that the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta1 had been misinterpreted by the Assistant Labour Officer; the said judgment pertained only to a few industries; and in so far as Andhra Pradesh was concerned it was confined only to Slate Industry in Markapur. The order under challenge was set aside by this Court and, since, prima facie, it appeared that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Act, and was liable to be prosecuted in terms of Section 14 of the Act, this Court observed that, since the Assistant Labour Officer was under a misapprehension that the judgment of the Supreme Court would apply to the facts of the case and nearly ten years were lost, the 1st respondent could move an application before the Magistrate concerned for condonation of delay in the circumstances of the case. The case on hand stands on a similar footing. Following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.33705 of 1997 dated 26.07.2006, the 3rd respondent is directed to prosecute the petitioner in terms of Section 14 of the Act and, since the 3rd respondent was under misapprehension that the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta1 would apply to the facts of the case on hand, and more than 12 years is lost in the process, the 3rd respondent may move an application before the Magistrate concerned for condonation of delay in the circumstances of the case. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 18th February 2010 KH [1] (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 756