JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Shramik Bastkar Vikas Samiti (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner samiti for short) to quash the notices dated NIL (Ex. 3 to 6) and prayed that respondents be restrained not to recover Rs. 80,000/- which is Rs. 20,000/- for each child from the petitioner. 2. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner Samiti is registered society bearing registration no.187/Jodhpur/1994-95 under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and as per averments in the writ petition, the society is imparting training in Dast-kar to increase efficiency for production in the field. The respondents issued notices in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamilnadu reported in AIR 1997 SC 699 in which directions were issued for implementing the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act,1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986 for short). In the Act of 1986 there is Section 14, which provides minimum of penalty of 3 months imprisonment and fine to pay Rs. 25,000/- and under Section 16 of the Act it is provided that the offence under the Act shall be tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The respondent no.2 served notices dated NIL in which it is mentioned that on 29.4.1997 while inspecting the petitioner society, the inspection team found two child labourers working. The names of those child labourers are Ku. Sumitra, Ku. Nathki, Ku. Manju and Ku. Kaushaliya. The petitioner submitted a representation against the said notice in which it is submitted that the petitioner samiti is exempted from the provisions of the Act of 1986 because the petitioner samiti is getting aid from the Central Wool Development Board, Ministry of Textile, Government of India to the tune of Rs. 1 lac and 2 lacs for training in carpet wearing in center at Samdari. To prove the said fact, the petitioner samiti placed on record Annex.8 and 9 whereby aid was granted by the Central Government of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices Annex.3 to 6 are illegal and without jurisdiction because the petitioner samiti is imparting carpet training in the Center which is not covered by the schedule and exempted under Section 3 of the Act of 1986. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices Annex.3 to 6 are illegal and without jurisdiction because the petitioner samiti is imparting carpet training in the Center which is not covered by the schedule and exempted under Section 3 of the Act of 1986. Further, it is submitted that the impugned notice are illegal because these are in violation of principles of natural justice because before imposing of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for each child, the opportunity of hearing including to lead evidence is not given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices issued to the petitioner Samiti deserves to be quashed on the ground that petitioner Samiti is not covered by the schedule and exempted under Section 3 of the Act of 1986. 4. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that aid received by the petitioner Samiti is utilised for imparting training, therefore, in absence of that it cannot be said that petitioner samiti implemented the scheme fully or not. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that at the time of inspection of the Training Center, 4 children were found to be employed by the society which is in contravention of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions of the Act of 1986, therefore, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed because the action against the petitioner Samiti has been initiated after survey as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under the provisions of the Act of 1986. Further, the proceedings under the Act of 1986 have been launched before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Siwana where petitioner can take his all defence available to it. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire writ petition, so also, considered the fact that vide order dated 14.1.1998 the effect and operation of the notices were stayed by the coordinate bench of this court. I have also perused the proviso to Section 3 of the Act of 1986, which reads as under:- "3. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire writ petition, so also, considered the fact that vide order dated 14.1.1998 the effect and operation of the notices were stayed by the coordinate bench of this court. I have also perused the proviso to Section 3 of the Act of 1986, which reads as under:- "3. Prohibition of Employment of Children in certain occupations and process.- No child shall be employed or permitted to work in any of the occupations set forth in Part A of the Schedule or in any workshop wherein any of the processes set forth in Part B of the Schedule is carried on : Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to any workshop wherein any process is carried on by the occupier with the aid of his family or to any school establishment by, or receiving assistance or recognition from, Government." 6. It is true that under the proviso there is exemption for the establishment receiving assistance or recognised from the Government and it is not disputed before me that the petitioner Samiti was getting aid from Central Government, therefore, obviously at the time of filing representation by the petitioner against the notices, the respondents were under obligation to consider the exemption granted to the petitioner under the proviso to Section 3 of the Act of 1986, but as per pleadings it is obvious that without considering the proviso to Section 3 and the fact that petitioner Samiti was getting aid from the Central Government, the respondent department proceeded against the petitioner Samiti and initiated action. 7. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that case of the petitioner Samiti is required to be reconsidered by the respondent department in the light of the proviso to Section 3 of the Act of 1986 and upon the fact that petitioner Samiti was getting aid from the Central Government. 8. Consequently, the notices dated NIL Ex.3 to 6 are quashed and this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners Samiti in the light of proviso to Section 3 of the Act and after providing an opportunity to the petitioner Samiti pass the order strictly in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******