IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13898 of 2003 Ashiana Nav Nirman Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Om Prakash Agrawal, Managing Director, Verma Centre, Patna, P.S. Shri Krishna Puri, District Patna ...............Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Labour Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Deputy Commissioner Labour (Child Labour), Patna 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Patna 5. The District Certificate Officer, Patna 6. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patna........................... Respondents ----------- 7. 15.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. From Annexure-1, it appears that premises of the petitioner were inspected by the Inspector appointed under the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 14.05.1997. One child labour, namely, Ranjeet Kumar Pandit was found engaged by the petitioner whose age appeared as around 14 years. Therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner- firm to deposit a penalty of Rs.20,000/-in the District Child Labour Rehabilitation and Welfare Fund by 18.05.1997. Petitioner did not deposit penalty amount and, therefore, another notice dated 23.06.1997 was issued to him by the Sub- - 2 - Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar vide Annexure-2. It is contended that after receipt of the notice, boy himself filed a petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner enclosing school leaving certificate, vide Annexures 3 and 4, contending that he was 20 years of age. From Annexure-5 it appears that petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner also before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. In spite of such claim on behalf of the boy, a certificate proceeding was initiated in which petitioner was noticed vide Annexure-6. Petitioner filed his objection in the certificate proceeding vide Annexure-7. It is contended that without considering his objection, another notice dated 07.10.2003 was issued by the Certificate Officer vide Annexure-8. Therefore, petitioner has moved this court. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 in the case. It is contended that petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to age of the child and, therefore, no determination was required in this regard in terms of Section 10 of the Act. From Annexures 3, 4 and 5, it appears - 3 - that petitioner had raised a dispute with regard to age of the child before the competent authority, maybe a little late. It is acknowledged in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that the said petition of the boy was, indeed, received in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The counter affidavit does not show that any enquiry was made by the competent authority in terms of Section 10 of the Act. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the competent authority to get the dispute resolved in terms of Section 10 of the Act before referring the matter to the Certificate Officer for recovery of the penalty amount under the provisions of Public Demand Recovery Act. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the authority should first decide the dispute with regard to age of the labour child in terms of Section 10 of the Act and thereafter only to proceed in the matter afresh. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to hold an enquiry or get an enquiry held in terms of - 4 - section 10 of the Act and decide the issue afresh. Till then, the certificate proceeding in Misc. Case no.157 of 2000-2001 pending before the Certificate Officer, Patna shall remain stayed. The writ application is disposed of with the observations and directions. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)