The Allahabad High Court (“All HC”), in the case of Santosh Kolanki v. State of UP decided to set aside a criminal sentence under the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (“Act”) whereby Santosh Kolanki was convicted for employing child labour and was punished with imprisonment of three years by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh on August 08, 2001.
The question before All HC was whether a person could be held guilty of offences under the Act when there was no material to show the actual age of the child workers employed by him.
In the present case, Santosh Kolanki was sentenced to imprisonment without there being any record/proof of the age of the alleged child workers employed by him. The Labour Enforcement Officer (“Officer”) who investigated the case submitted that age details of the alleged child workers could not be recorded as the accused had torn the record paper on which details of such child workers were recorded. Whereas, Santosh Kolanki stated that this complaint was filed out of malice, as the accused had refused to bribe the Officer.
The All HC, while holding that it is the first duty of the Officer to rehabilitate and recover any child worker as prescribed under Section 14(C) of the Act, which the Officer failed to do in the present case. It also held that in the absence of any material to show the actual age of the alleged child workers, the accused could not be sentenced to imprisonment.
Quick View
A child means a person who has not completed his/her fourteenth year of age, as prescribed under Section 2 of the Act. The Act makes it clear that a child cannot be employed in industries and workshops enlisted in the Act. If a person above the age of 14 is employed in a factory or workshop, he/she must carry a “certificate of age” issued by a government medical authority. In case of dispute as to age of an employee in the absence of certificate of age, the Labour Inspector may refer the dispute to a government medical authority, whose decision shall be final. This judgment rightly set aside the conviction order of the accused as the same was passed without there being any material to show that the workers employed were below the age of 14 years.
Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.