Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 448 (MP)

RAJ HOMES PVT. LTD v. STATE OF M. P

2003-03-26

BHAWANI SINGH, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge, in W. P. No. 6380/2002, dated December 4, 2002, whereby. the petition has been dismissed. ( 2 ) PRECISELY, facts of the case are that the appellant was issued notice dated March 23, 2002 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, bhopal, to show cause why action be not taken against him under the provisions of the child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)act, 1986, for having employed Ku. Savita (12) D/o Bhurani, R/o village Isradra, Post madrani, Tahsilmeghanagar, District Jhabua, ku. Sandhu (11) D/o Annu, R/o village isradra, Post Madrani, Tahsil Meghanagar (Jhabua), Ku. Sunita (12) D/o Nag, R/o village isradra, Post Madrani (Jhabua) and Anusuia (13)S/odhannu, R/o J. K. Road, Govindpura, bhopal, in construction work violating Section 3 read with Section 14 (l) (3)of the Act of 1986. Pursuant to this notice, the petitioner filedreply on April 10, 2002 stating that he is engaged in selling of houses while construction of houses is done through contractors, therefore the responsibility for engagement of labour is of the contractor and the petitioner does not engage the labourers directly. The children mentioned in the show cause notice, have not been engaged by the petitioner for digging work and on 20/10/2001, house construction work had not been started, therefore, there is no violation, as alleged. Efforts were made to find out the particulars of the children, but no clue is there. Challan has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Shahjanabad (Bhopal) on April 10, 2002. The impugned order is passed on july 1, 2002. The petitioner has been called upon to pay Rs. 20,000/- to each child, total rs. 80,000 /- for four children. The petitioner challenged this action in WP No. 6380/2002. By detailed and comprehensive order the petition has been dismissed on December 4, 2002, therefore, this Letter Patent Appeal has been filed by the petitioner. ( 3 ) SHRI Ashok Lalwani reiterates the submission that the petitioner is not engaged in construction of nouses but sale thereof. Construction of houses is entrusted to the contractors. There is no mention of contractors, who have been engaged by the petitioner, therefore, the plea is thoroughly unsustainable, taken up to avoid liability. ( 3 ) SHRI Ashok Lalwani reiterates the submission that the petitioner is not engaged in construction of nouses but sale thereof. Construction of houses is entrusted to the contractors. There is no mention of contractors, who have been engaged by the petitioner, therefore, the plea is thoroughly unsustainable, taken up to avoid liability. In the reply filed to show cause, the petitioner describes himself "raj Homes Pvt. Ltd. , builders and Colonisers", which is enough to show that the petitioner is engaged in the construction of houses and denial is an afterthought simply to avoid the liability. Further, it is a case where show cause notice has been issued by the Labour Commissioner, pursuant to the spot inspection by the inspector, who visited the spot and found the children engaged in construction work, therefore, denial of the petitioner is wrong. ( 4 ) FURTHER submission is that the petitioner should have been heard like the petitioner in WP No. 1619/1998, Ircon international Ltd. and others v. State of M. P. and others, pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 6/05/1998. Facts and circumstances differed in the two cases. The learned single judge passed the order in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the allegation is based on spot inspection. The petitioner has been issued show cause notice asking why he had engaged the children in the construction work and the impugned order has been passed thereafter, obviously after taking consideration the reply of the petitioner. No detailed enquiry is envisaged nor sought, attempt is to delay the case. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has examined the matter comprehensively before rejecting the pleas advanced by the petitioner. The object of the legislative is salutary and directions of the apex Court in M. C. Mehta v. State of tamilnadu, AIR 1997 SC 699 : 1996 (6) SCC 0 756 : 1997- II-LLJ-724 are mandatory, to be implemented promptly and in letter and spirit. This case was initiated on 20/10/2001 and final order has been passed on July 1, 2002, after about 9 months. Such cases should be detected and action taken, otherwise the laudable object of legislation shall stand defeated. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is dismissed. The petitioner will pay Rs. This case was initiated on 20/10/2001 and final order has been passed on July 1, 2002, after about 9 months. Such cases should be detected and action taken, otherwise the laudable object of legislation shall stand defeated. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is dismissed. The petitioner will pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of cost to be deposited in the fund opened and maintained under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. .