N. V.DABHOLKAR,J.:- Petitioner has approached this Court for the purpose of challenging Clause 3(B)(8) as contained in Government Resolution No.CLA/2006/ (299)KAMA-74 dated 25-4-2006, issued by the Government of through Industries, Energy and Workers Department. According to petitioner, the said Clause is in conflict with the law applicable and also violative of fundamental rights. Reply is filed on behalf of respondents by Shri. Balraj Deshmukh, presently working as Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Latur, which is taken on record and considered. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by mutual consent. As is evident from the title of the Government Resolution. i.e. "to free the State from unhealthy practice of child workers". It is evident that these are the directions/guidelines issued by the Government for the purpose of seeking freedom to the child workers wherever they are so employed. We need not refer to all the details in the Resolution. The Clause under challenge reads thus: Freelance English translation of the same would be as under: "Because Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 defines Juvenile or child by its Section 2(k) as an individual who has not completed age of 18 years, if child workers who have completed 14 years are found in the raid, those child workers also should be freed from the clutches of the employer and they should be handed over to the police authorities." It appears that the directions/guidelines direct the authorities who are required to act upon those, to ensure freedom also to the child workers between the age group of 14 to 18 years. 3. The exception taken to the said Clause is based upon definition of "child" as contained in Section 2(ii) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986. The Preamble of the said Act reads as under: "An Act for prohibiting engagement of children in certain employment and to regulate the conditions of working of children in certain other employments." The phrase "Child" is defined as under: "2(ii) "Child" means a person who has not completed his 14th year of age." Thus, it is evident that for the purpose of Enactment. which is enacted to prohibit the engagement of children in certain employment "child" is a person who has not completed age of 14 years. Obviously a person who has completed j 4 years c; age. which is enacted to prohibit the engagement of children in certain employment "child" is a person who has not completed age of 14 years. Obviously a person who has completed j 4 years c; age. would not be a "child" for the purposes of Sections 3 and 14 of the said Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the petitioner is engaged in the business of ice-cream i.e. he runs Ice Cream Parlour. He is aggrieved because during the raids, his worke"s aged between 14 to 18 are also tried to be prohibited from being employer by him. Shri. C. R. Deshpande. Adv. for petitioner concedes that the business of the petitioner would fall in Item 15 of the Schedule to Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986, which reads as under: "15. Employment of children in dhabas (road-side eateries), restaurants. hotels, motels, tele-shop.:;, resorts, saps or other recreational centres". However, he challenges that the Government Resolution which is issued in order to give effect to the spirit of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 is tried to be implemented by borrowing the definition of "child" from a different Enactment i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The said Act in its Section 2(k) defines the "child" as under: "2(k) "juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age;" The Juvenile Justice Act is aimed at providing a juvenile justice system for juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposition of matters in the best interests of children and for their rehabilitation keeping in view the developmental needs of the children. 5. The object and reason for which the two legislations are enacted are quite distinct. The Child Labour Act takes care of a child who has not completed age of 14th year of age by prohibiting their being employed in certain types of employments and provides for an action to secure freedom for such "child" from certain types of employments. The Juvenile Justice Act is aimed at helping the juvenile who are in conflict with law or who otherwisw need care and protection. Even the child in need of care and protection is specifically defined in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the said Act. 6. The Juvenile Justice Act is aimed at helping the juvenile who are in conflict with law or who otherwisw need care and protection. Even the child in need of care and protection is specifically defined in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the said Act. 6. For the purpose of implementing the provisions of Child Labour Act. 1986. it is inappropriate to borrow the definition of the child from a different Enactment. The children to be taken care of under Child Labour Act. are different than the children to be protected by Juvenile Justice Act. The children contemplated to be protected by Child Labour Act are not in conflict with law, but their employers are acting in breach of law and to that extent protection is granted to children who have not completed age of 14 years. The Juvenile Justice Act takes care of a juvenile or child, defined as a person not having completed Eighteenth year of age who is in conflict with law or who is alleged to have committed some offence. 7. Therefore, Clause 8 of Para 3(B) of Government Resolution dated 25-4-2006 which relies upon definition of the child as contained in Juvenile Justice Act for the purpose of implementing the provisions of Child Labour Act is required to be struck down, since it is ultra-vires to the extent it borrows definition of "child" from a different legislation. If the word "child" is defined in a particular way by Child Labour Act, while implementing the provisions of the Act, same definition ought to be followed. 8. Impugned Clause 8, therefore, is struck down as ultra vires Section 2(ii) of Child Labour Act and Government may substitute Clause 8 by appropriate Clause in harmony with the definition of "child" as contained in Section 2(ii) of Child Labour Act. 9. Rule made absolute accordingly. Writ Petition is disposed of. Petition allowed.