Mohammed Iqbal S/O Bandumiya Kusugal Vs Senior Labour Inspector

ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND DESIGNATED ENQUIRY OFFICER, UNDER CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND CONTROL ACT 1986), DHARWAD DIVISION AT HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2006 BEARING NO.¸ÀPÁDºÀÄ/ ¨ÁPÁPÁ/¹DA-58/2002-03 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AS A NULL AND VOID AND ETC.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶23

The present petition is filed calling in question the order bearing No.Sa.Kaa.Aa.Hu/Ba.Ka.Ka/CR-58/2002-03, dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure-F to the writ petition), passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Designated Enquiry Officer, Dharwad Division, Hubli, Dharwad District.

¶24

The relevant facts, in a nut-shell, leading to the present writ petition are that, the petitioner who is engaged in the business of book binding, was served with a notice dated 20.06.2003 issued by the 2^nd respondent–Assistant Labour Commissioner and Designated Enquiry Officer, stating that the 1^st respondent–Senior Labour Inspector, Hubli, had submitted an application for recovery of Rs.20,000/- on the allegation that the petitioner had engaged child labour in his book binding business. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered appearance in the proceedings and filed his objections by stating that the worker employed by him by name Saleem Bijapur was more than 14

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

years old and hence he had not committed any offence under the provisions of the Child & Adolescents Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986¹ . In support of his contention, the petitioner also produced a medical certificate dated 21.03.2003 issued by the Department of Radiology, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Hubballi.

¶28

It is the further contention of the petitioner that the proceedings before the 2^nd respondent was adjourned on various dates since the Presiding Officer was on leave on that on 09.11.2006, the matter was adjourned to 23.11.2006 for passing of orders. However, upon enquiry and upon making an application for requisite copies, the petitioner learnt that the 2^nd respondent has recorded the statement of the 1^st respondent on 09.11.2006 and on the said basis, the impugned order bearing No. No.Sa.Kaa.Aa.Hu/Ba.Ka.Ka/CR-58/2002-03, dated 28.11.2006 was passed, wherein the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved the present petition is filed.

¶29

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to contest the case on its merits. It is further contended that the petitioner, having taken a specific defence that the concerned workman was aged more than 14 years, the adjudication as to the age of the workman has to be done in terms of Section 10 of the Act, wherein the Inspector was required to refer the adjudication as to age for a decision by the prescribed medical authority.

¶33

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶34

It is forthcoming that the petitioner had filed his objections dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) to the notice dated 20.06.2003 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). It is further forthcoming from the record of proceedings (AnnexureD to the writ petition) that on 09.11.2006, the matter was adjourned for orders on 23.11.2006. It is also noticed that the 2^nd respondent has passed the final order on 28.11.2006. It is noticed from Annexure-E that the statement of the 1^st

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

respondent has been recorded. However, there is no crossexamination of the 1^st respondent.

¶38

Further, having regard to the specific contention putforth by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent was required to adjudicate upon the age of the workman concerned.

¶39

Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to contest the proceedings initiated by the 2^nd respondent against him on its merits. Hence, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶42

ii) The order bearing No. No.Sa.Kaa.Aa.Hu/ Ba.Ka.Ka/CR-58/2002-03 dated 29.11.2006 passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside.

¶43

iii) The petitioner or his authorized representative shall appear before the 2^nd respondent on 24.09.2025 without the requirement of any further notice being issued in this regard.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10793 WP No. 64802 of 2012

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

iv) Consequent to the appearance of the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent shall conduct further proceedings in accordance with law, more specifically having regard to the stand of the petitioner wherein the age of the workman has been disputed.

¶47

v) All contentions of the parties on the merits of the matter are left open.

¶48

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶49

KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Mohammed Iqbal S/O Bandumiya Kusugal v. Senior Labour Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Iqbal S/O Bandumiya Kusugal v. Senior Labour Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller, Nekrtc, Koppal Vs Rachappa S/O.Basappa Kundkur

M/S Renuka Gas Service Vs Mallappa M Lumachye

The Divisional Controller, Vs Chandrashekhar Veerappa Talwar

Smt. Lakshmi Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

M/S. Haj S.R. Umachagi @ Co. Coen Road, Hubli Vs Basheer Ahmed S/O. Nabisab Muddebehal

Shanawax S/O. Srfaraj Ahamed Ummachagi Vs Basheer Ahmed S/O. Nabisab Muddebihal