JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad Division Faizabad, whereby petitioner has been found to be guilty of Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1986) and a penalty of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed upon him for employing the person below the age of fourteen years. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner runs a Motor Cycle repairing shop in the name and style Pappu Hero Honda Repairing Centre, Mawai Chauraha Faizabad and on 13.08.2013 the Labour Enforcement Officer/Inspector, Faizabad. Respondent No.4 came to the shop of the petitioner and found one Sonu to be working in the repair shop. On the basis of the aforesaid a show cause notice dated 18.12.2013 was given to the petitioner with direction to give a reply to the allegations stated therein with regard to the fact that he had employed a minor in his shop who was found during the inspection of the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 12.02.2014 and denying the fact that he had employed any minor in his shop and submitted a marksheet of a student named as Shiv Kumar having the date of birth as 15.02.1996 and submitted that person so named in the show cause notice is not a minor and is aged around eighteen years and therefore there is no violation Section 3 of the of Act, 1986. 4. Subsequently another show cause notice was given to the petitioner by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad dated 18.06.2014 reiterating the same facts. It has been submitted that reply of the said show cause notice could not be given. It is relevant to submit that the order dated 18.06.2014 as well as order dated 18.12.2013 are similarly worded and reply to the show cause notice 18.12.2013 was already been submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad after taking into account the reply submitted by the petitioner. 5. It is relevant to submit that the order dated 18.06.2014 as well as order dated 18.12.2013 are similarly worded and reply to the show cause notice 18.12.2013 was already been submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order was passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad after taking into account the reply submitted by the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as the person who was employed in the premises of the petitioner was not a minor and he had provided a copy of the High School Certificate of the said Sri Shiv Kumar, which indicates that he is nearly eighteen years of age. 6. In light of the above he has vehemently submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being passed contrary to the provisions of the Act. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has supported the impugned. He has submitted that during the time of inspection on 13.08.2013 a minor was found to be working in the Motor Cycle repairing shop of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the age of the child was confirmed when he was produced before the Chief Medical Officer, Faizabad who after examining the boy issued a certificate dated 14.08.2013 indicating the boy age to be thirteen years. The photo of the person whose age was determined by the Chief Medical Officer was also affixed with a certificate issued by him. 8. It has been submitted that in light of the conclusive proof of the age of the person so found in the premises of the petitioner, there is a clear violation of Section 3 of the Act, 1986 for which the petitioner has been found to be guilty and penalty imposed thereupon. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The premises of the petitioner were inspected on 13.08.2013 and the said person was produced before the Chief Medical Officer who certified that the date of birth of Sonu is 13 years by the certificate dated 14.08.2013. The entire controversy in the present petition relates to the identity and the age of the person so found during inspection. 10. The premises of the petitioner were inspected on 13.08.2013 and the said person was produced before the Chief Medical Officer who certified that the date of birth of Sonu is 13 years by the certificate dated 14.08.2013. The entire controversy in the present petition relates to the identity and the age of the person so found during inspection. The petitioner on one hand has submitted a High School Certificate of one person known as Shiv Kumar, whose date of birth has been shown as 15.02.1996 and has submitted that on the date when the premises were inspected he was not minor. While on the other hand the State has relied upon Medical Certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, who determined the age of the person who was found in the premises at the time of inspection to be thirteen years. 11. To resolve the controversy, the provisions relating to determination of age as provided in the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 are as under:- "16. Procedure relating to offences-(1) Any person, police officer of Inspector may file a complaint of the commission of an offence under this Act in any Court or contempt jurisdiction. (2) Every certificate as to the age of a child which has been granted by a prescribed medical authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, be conclusive evidence as to the age of the child to whim it relates. (3) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act." 12. From the above, it is clear that the certificate granted by the prescribed Medical Authority shall be the conclusive evidence as to the age of Child and in the present case certificate dated 14.08.2013 issued by the Chief Medical Officer has determined the age of the child to be thirteen years. While on the other hand Section 10 of the Act of 1986 relates to dispute as to the age which is quoted for ready reference:- "10. While on the other hand Section 10 of the Act of 1986 relates to dispute as to the age which is quoted for ready reference:- "10. Disputes as to age-If any question arises between an Inspector and an occupier as to the age of any child who is employed or is permitted to work by him in an establishment, the question shall, in the absence of a certificate as to the age of such child granted by the prescribed medical authority, be referred by the Inspector for decision to the prescribed medical authority." 13. A bare reading of Section 10 of the Act of 1986 clearly indicates that the dispute will arise only in a case where no certificate has been granted by the Prescribed Medical Authority. Petitioner on the other hand has contended that the High School Certificate issued by the Board indicates that the child is above seventeen years of age. While the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Authority, Faizabad indicates that the age of the child is thirteen years. The provision of Section 10 of the Act of 1986 would be attracted only in absence of any certificate issued by the prescribed Medical Authority. 14. In the instant case it is clear that the prescribed authority has given his considered opinion and indicated the age of the child to be thirteen years and in light of Section 16 of the Act of 1986, and the said age having been determined by the prescribed authority shall be a conclusive evidence as to the age of the child. In the present case I am of the view that the age determined by the prescribed Medical Authority is thirteen years and therefore the proceedings drawn against the petitioner under the Act of 1986 clearly borne out. The petitioner has setup a case with regard to a person whose identity has been disputed. The photograph of the person setup by the petitioner does not match with the photograph which was taken at the time of incident which is also in the records of the respondents as well as the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Authority. 15. In case such a stand was taken by the petitioner regarding identity then onus will go on the petitioner to prove to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. 15. In case such a stand was taken by the petitioner regarding identity then onus will go on the petitioner to prove to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. While on the other hand the State has clearly proved that the offence has been committed by the petitioner by employing a person whose age has already been determined by the prescribed Medical Authority to be less than fourteen years. 16. The Deputy Labour Commissioner has considered the entire conspectus of the case and has come to a clear finding against the petitioner and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- upon him. No other fact or material had been brought on record which may persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order. No other ground was urged by the petitioner. 17. In pursuance to the interim order of this Court dated 06.08.2015, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.20,000/-on 18.08.2015. In light of the above no further action in this regard is required to be taken. 18. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The writ petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.