Judgment : 1. On 8.2.2006, it is stated, the Labour Officer and five other witnesses went to the premises of the petitioners' establishment and noticed that one male child by name Srinivasulu, s/o Krishna.S was employed by the petitioner and after drawing a mahazar referred the child to the prescribed medical authority under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Rules framed thereunder, for a decision over the age of the child. One Dr.Surendranath Nayak, Sr.Specialist at Community Health Centre (CHC), Buntwal, is said to have, along with the Dental Surgeon Dr.Jaydeep of CHC, Buntwal examined the physique, the total number of teeth and after an X-ray photograph opined that Srinivasulu was aged between 12 to 14 years and accordingly issued a certificate dated 8.2.2006 whereafter wards the Labour Officer petitioned the authority under the Act and after an enquiry, it was held that the petitioners had employed a minor, aged less than 14 years and hence violation of the Act and Rules by order dated 30.4.2007. Hence this petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is correct in his submission that except for the say of the Labour Officer who had drawn the mahazar, there was no evidence of the five witnesses mentioned in the mahazar to establish the disputed fact that Srinivasulu was employed by the petitioner establishment on 8.2.2006. In the absence of mahazar witness being examined coupled with the fact that there was not an iota of documentary evidence over the alleged employment, the prescribed authority was not justified in concluding that there was jural relationship of employer and employee as between the petitioners and Srinivasulu, the allegedly a minor. 3. Although learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-authority seeks to sustain the order impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference, is unable to get over the factual position of non-examination of the five mahazar witnesses. 4. On this ground alone this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 30.4.2007 of the 1st respondent is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh. Parties are permitted to lead additional evidence in respect of their claims. 5. Though learned Govt. 4. On this ground alone this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 30.4.2007 of the 1st respondent is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh. Parties are permitted to lead additional evidence in respect of their claims. 5. Though learned Govt. Advocate points to the decision of the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta -v- State of Tamil Nadu and others1, more appropriately to paragraphs 1 and 36 therein, there is not a titre of evidence to substantiate as to what happened to the minor by name Srinivasulu. Question is whether that minor was extended the benefit of free education, since, it is not that the Labour Officer must merely prohibit the engagement of child that is to be achieved under the Act and Rules. As pointed out by their lordships of the Apex Court the State must endeavour to keep the promise made to the children by the Constitution that the child would find himself into that "heaven of freedom" which our poet laureate Rabindranath Tagore has spoken in Gitanjali. The material on record is a sad reflection of that promise. It is, therefore, incumbent to point out to the authorities concerned to be more proactive in the matter of ensuring benefits to be extended to the child labour in addition to penalizing the employer. The Commissioner of Labour, State of (1996) 6 SCC 756 Karnataka is directed to enquire into and ascertain as to what is the fate of Srinivasulu and submit a report to the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks.